WILLEATFORFOOD wrote:
This is great! This is a clear area where we disagree and we've been given a mechanism to test our theories. My hypothesis is that the ironman events that no longer have pro fields will have decreased participation, and decreased revenues for surrounding businesses.
It's an interesting hypothesis, one shared by many on this board, but as far as I can tell it's already been disproven by Challenge. They took over the Penticton course (where WTC had been neglecting the pros), had what I believe was a larger prize purse, paid to have Macca there, yet the race and the town saw huge losses. Similar situation in Atlantic City with lots of pros, lots of prize money, but few age groupers. Meanwhile there are WTC events like Wisconsin that sellout despite a significant pro race. The conclusion I draw is that there is little to no correlation between age group participation and the presence of pros. Some races are popular, some aren't, and my guess is that money spent on pros has a significantly lower ROI than when it's spent on the age groupers.
But even if in a few years participation wanes, for races without pros, how will you show causation rather than just correlation when there are currently events that added more pros but lost AG participation?
WILLEATFORFOOD wrote:
In terms of drawing the line from pros to profits, my n<=20 is that I've shown up to spectate an ironman branded race because I knew that some exceptional athletes were going to be there.
This has been said a few times before, but notice that you switched from "pro" to "exceptional." That's significant because what it says that you want to see people that are "fast" regardless of what their designation is. At a lot of these races the lead AG isn't far behind the lead pro. The people you think are pro may in fact be amateurs!
Also notice that all you did was spectate--for free! WTC doesn't make any money if you just show up and stand on the side of a road. In fact, what you just showed was the opposite of what WTC wants--they need you to race and buy merchadise. It's great that having some pros meant one dude showed up to watch, but when I raced last I encouraged three other other friends to race with me. Each of us traveled with family and spent a week at the site. Those that couldn't make the trip logged on to ironman.com to track us. And because we enjoyed the race people will know are now more likely to sign up, bring their family, and repeat the process. That is an actual connection between the AG and profit.
WILLEATFORFOOD wrote:
To put it more succinctly, if you can point to someone who isn't at least a little bit more interested in Dimond bikes after TJ Tollakson's performance last weekend,
This is a valid point, but not for the case you were trying to make. WTC doesn't make any money when someone buys a Dimond bike, Dimond does. That's why companies like Dimond sponsor athletes, and probably have bonuses worked out for them if they podium. So why not go after them and their "absurd amount of money?" Why aren't they responsible for paying athletes and developing the sport that they're milking?