Of these athletes, how many have registered in previous years for multiple Ironman events. And what is the historic percentage of these folks in terms of registering and racing?

Here's how it is. About 5000 posts about WTC and Ironman Access boiled down to a simple reality:

WTC is losing out on "registration" money it feels is rightfully its own to the airlines and the local towns that host the Ironmans through money paid out by next years registrants who need to travel to the city in order to register. WTC wants to monetize some of this money the registrant is clearly willing to pay that is not going to WTC but to airlines, hotels, restaurants, toll booths, ...... They tried the Ironman Access program. WTC got internet bitch slapped by the masses for the blatantly greedy ridiculousness of it so copped together a lame "we're doing it for you not for the money" excuse. It's lame, it's pathetic, Fertic's explanation is so full of holes and Matias has just put some numbers to what was obvious.

But, this stumble won't stop them. They are an unapologetic for-profit venture (and there's nothing wrong with that) and they will find a way to monetize the true value for the demand for race registrations. It's called arbitrage and there's a big opportunity there. People are willing to spend more for their races than WTC is receiving, and WTC wants to reduce that gap.

WTC should just quit beating around the bush and just put all registrations on ebay. Skip onsite registrations entirely. Then they can get the true value of their registrations.

WTC, here's some advice to take to your equity firm board members when they're looking for ways to increase profits. Quit the fixed fee registration and fully leverage the supply-demand curve.

So...of the people who are simply competing in "double IMs," precisely (I think this is a simple calculation) how much benefit would it be to THEM to sign up for IM Access. They would pay only slightly less? to be assured of competing in only one race. So saving even those 497 spots are "iffy," IMO.

I think you are confusing the pro program with this one. AG'ers would have had to pay a additonal grand to all the entry fees. Pros just pay one fee for all the races, except hawaii//

his apology sounds like the lame BP's excuse for effing the gulf.

Agreed. And thanks to the OP for proving it.

---

================================
blog
twitter

I have completed 100% of the races I registered for.....I dont get the whole airline booking scheme....I need a business that sells stuff that people never get......I smell madof.....

---

Semper Fi

Motor, Suffer, Bonk

AGers - Race 1 ~$500 to $600 + Race 2 ~$500 to $600 = $1000 to $1200

AGers [IM Access] - Membership $1000 + Race 1 ~$500 to $600 = $1500 to $1600

Hmmm.

If his explanation has any truth to it (which I don't think it does) then it does explain the strict "No Refund Policy."

the data of the OP is incredible and highly interesting.

i appreciated his research. thanks.

his objective was to enlighten us with his analysis, nothing more.

enlighten us of what? its up to you how you take it. I was enlightened.

the first time I heard fertic's 2500-3000 statement , in 5 seconds using my common sense I figured it was not possible.

the OP's data only convinced me further.

andrew

Good stuff. I see this as just curiosity on the accuracy of the statements put forth by WTC. This was interesting. No wonder this guy is so fast--if he takes his research as seriously as his training, it is easy to see why he goes so fast.

Well done on the analysis.

I think this should be posted as an update to the Slowtwitch front pages article/interview with WTC representive. Clearly they've been caught out lying.

I respect their decision either way, but I'd support slowman, Rappstar etc to move this research to the front page and inform WTC so we can perhaps get their response.

Slowtwitch has already quoted posters on this forum in the article. I think the opening post of this thread is the best researched post yet and deserves attention.

x10

Well done on the analysis.

I think this should be posted as an update to the Slowtwitch front pages article/interview with WTC representive. Clearly they've been caught out lying.

I respect their decision either way, but I'd support slowman, Rappstar etc to move this research to the front page and inform WTC so we can perhaps get their response.

Slowtwitch has already quoted posters on this forum in the article. I think the opening post of this thread is the best researched post yet and deserves attention.

____________________________

x100 :)

Oh I agree. I do think that Matias has admitted that he missed out on the people who will be racing in one age this year (IMFL, IMAZ, IMCOZ) and a different age next year. ie; the number of folks doing 3 or more IMs is likely higher than his estimate. Maybe he is going to work on that?

Either way it confirms that Ben's 'apology' was what many of us suspected... a bold-faced lie.

I don't hate WTC and am registered for a few of their races next year, but I do hate it when people lie and expect everyone to be stupid and just accept the lie. Let's face it, WTC made a grab for a few more $$$. I was actually OK with it as it wasn't going to take away spots from others and it wasn't something I was going to buy.

Maybe the apology should have been "We are trying to grow our business. We came up with the Ironman Access program as a revenue generator. Due to negative consumer feedback we have decided to shelve this program"

then again, WTC simply can't make some people happy regardless of what they do can they?


PS: Matias, you are smoking fast. I would have zero chance of even coming close to you in a race!

Thank God I am not in your age group ;-)

---

Founder of THE TRIATHLON COLLECTIVE (Closed Facebook Group). A SBR discussion group without the white noise/trolling!

I like the analysis. Am sure it is just a good attempt.
I think most of the people who enter multiple ironman events would do at least 2 of them.
Seeing the historical data of what happened would be interesting.

it seems WTC were trying to copy what was set up for the pro's in a different version.

So the idea was you pay a grand and then what, you pick any ironman you want or what? I will read the background up.

G.
www.TriathlonShots.com

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

I LOVE your analysis.

Another obvious lie from the WTC was this quote (from the ST article):

"They don't know what their schedules are going to look like. Once a place on their schedule opens up, that's the race they participate in. But they're no-shows at all the other races, and we might've filled that spot by with another entrant."

How would ironman Access solve this problem? My interpretation of this quote is that people sign up for 2-3 events because they don't know their schedule NEXT year. The Access program only lets them buy their entry one year + one week earlier, right? So how would that help anyone who still doesn't know what their schedule will be like NEXT year? People would still sign up for multiple events, and decide based on their schedule, so clearly this program wasn't for them , either. They obviously just wanted more money- plain and simple- why lie?

I would think that if the primary concern was freeing up 'reserved' spots then the Access program would have come with a Transfer Policy for it's members - freeing up any spots AND bringing in money. Since you have to buy a spot a year in advance for the majority of the races, how does WTC know that's the reason these folks are buying multiple spots? perhaps they fully intended to do all three and life got in the way. perhaps WTC has data we don't. doens't matter in the end, the program is gone.

Thanks to the OP for an fun read this morning.

Here's the spreadsheet:

Domestic IM Registrations as of Oct 29, 2010

Participants list in Excel, makes it easy to find what you're looking for. Sort by IM (AZ, FL, St.G, TX, CdA, LP, Canada, Louisville, Wisconsin), Age, Last Name, Gender, State.

Focused on non-intl IMs since the the 2500-3000 number was based on domestic IMs. And more work gathering registration lists from non-US IMs.

Comparing the registered athletes to the results would be neat to see. That starts to get more complicated, but if someone wants to go for it or has questions about the spreadsheet let me know.

Adding to the mystery, is that there is a much easier way to accomplish what he claims to be the motivation. Challenge charges app $50 bucks extra for cancellation insurance and you get your entrance fee back up to 90 days before the race if you cancel. With a sold out race, these slots could then be filled from a waiting list. Of course, the difference is that this would not generate nearly as much revenue as their failed plan.

I have always felt that the WTC as evil empire meme is quite hysterical. However, is getting a little harder defend them.

Just an fyi, I think there's a flaw in your analysis, b/c I personally am signed up for two and I'm not on your list.

I agree.

I used age to separate the 26 year old John Smith from the 48 year old John Smith. However, there may be a 27 year old John Smith racing IMAZ, and will race as a 28 yr old at IMLP. In fact, there may be a LOT of them.

Thanks to Chuck and others for pointing this out, for example Chuck will be racing as a 42 yr old at AZ, and a 43 yr old at Texas & Canada. He was not included in the original 3+ IMers list. There are likely a lot more Chucks out there in the world (or at least in the US). In fact, there could be up to 500 athletes signed up for three or more IMs. This makes Fertic's 2500-3000 claim more realistic.

So maybe Fertic's 2500-3000 statement is accurate. If someone wants to go for it, the spreadsheet has all the data you need to figure it out.

It makes the fact that there are maybe 1500 people signing up for multiple IM's accurate, it doesnt make the fact that there are 2500 unused slots a year because of multiple signups accurate.

---

-------------------------------------
You don't have to like what I say but you should respect my right to say them and I'll do the same to you.

So maybe Fertic's 2500-3000 statement is accurate. If someone wants to go for it, the spreadsheet has all the data you need to figure it out. //

Several things here, even if there are that many multiple ironman entries(I believe 100% there are not), then 100% of them would have to be ditching all but one of their races, which of course they do not. I know tons of people that do multiple ironmans, some much more that they should. It would be virtually impossible to see exactly how many slots are in Ben's category, you would have to actually have to compare start lists, since some people would show up to a race but drop out. Some races reach near 20% dropout on a bad day, so perhaps if you could get swim results it would be more accurate. Then you would have to back out the people that were actually injured or sick, that probably runs around 5% to 8%. Then there are the other good excuses not to race, death in families, kid being born, major family problem, ect. All those folks entered with the full intention of racing, not Ben's shady scenario of entering just to choose later. So another 2% to 6% there.

SO if you could figure out all of that, which you took a very good 1st step in doing, you could get a very close #. It might be about 50, and I believe I'm being generous. A lot more if you count pros, but that is a different system the WTC created for themselves. I said it from the very beginning, this was a thrown together coverup of the real reason, and it turned out to be as inept as the initial program....

Thanks for your work though, always interesting to look at numbers. You tore apart Bens made up excuse, and now the forum detectives are pulling apart your numbers. Well not pulling apart exactly, but helping you refine them to be more accurate, man I love this forum... You would think high profile people in the industry would know by now that they cannot get away with any sort of bullshit, but I guess not yet.

I really appreciate Matias's research, and I think it's compelling. However, we aren't currently planning on writing an article on it for one simple reason - as much as this data appears to undercut Fertic's apology, I don't think it's entirely surprising. The explanation given has already been pointed out to be flawed on several counts. IMAccess gave people the opportunity to sign up for an Ironman a week early. That's it.

As numerous people have pointed out, allowing someone to sign up a week EARLY really offered little no benefit to someone who was signing up for multiple IMs because of potential scheduling conflicts. If you are signing up for IMCdA, IMLP, and IMKY because you aren't sure if you're going to have the most free time in June, July, or August, then how does signing up a week in ADVANCE of everyone else alleviate those concerns? Simply put, it does not.

Like many people, I read the IMAccess program initially as being similar to the Pro program - albeit entry fees were still required - as in "you can sign up whenever you want." Figure they would ask the IMAccess people which races they were considering, then set aside X slots for those races. Something like that.

Then I re-read it thanks to some other folks bringing up the issue and saw that all it was an opportunity for EARLY reg. And then I realized the program made no sense. It was $1000 to "cut in line," but it wasn't actually clear that anyone wanted to cut in line or that cutting in line would somehow offer some sort of benefit to other folks down the line.

So, the way I see it, there are a couple things to consider here. Fertic issued an apology. Check. WTC rescinded the program. Check. So now, the question is, do you really want to get up in arms about the public apology vs. the "real" reason. Would everyone actually be happier if somehow WTC was further shamed? What does that achieve?

Let's think back to the compression sock ban. My own strictly personal opinion is that compression socks were banned - briefly - because they look ridiculous (speaking as someone who has worn them during an IM marathon). But that was not a good reason. So they said it was to keep ages on calves from being hidden. Then they rescinded it. But we never asked them admit that they were trying to make IM "look better on TV." Though I'm pretty sure that was the reason. But, ultimately, they listened to the athletes and never instituted the ban.

The simplest story is this: WTC instituted a program that they felt would increase their revenue stream. People spoke out against it, and WTC rescinded it. I don't see the benefit in really hammering home that the explanation for the now defunct program didn't add up. It's DOA. Let it die.

What I can promise you is that if IMAccess comes back in some form or another at some point in the future and if "multiple sign-ups" is touted as the reason, then you can be sure Matias's data will be instrumental in our writing a story then. Until such point, I think you all should feel proud that folks like you took the time to speak out and were heard.

Right now, it seems like a story based off this is a bit like beating a dead horse. Just because it's a horse you REALLY want to beat doesn't make it a more productive endeavour.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp