I very much doubt anyone would be in Kona to film the race after a while if it was run as a mass participatory age group event only.

I think part of the problem in general for the pros is the explosion of the number of Ironman and 70.3 events. There are too many of them and winning one doesn't mean nearly as much as it did say 15-20 years ago. Except for the absolute best pros at Kona it's much harder to create a name and a profile in the sport these days because of that. No one can keep up with who is winning what and everything is too diluted. It might be easier to win an Ironman now for the same reasons but on the flip side not as many people notices/cares when you do. Back in the day it was easier to keep up because everyone had to race each other a bit more often. If you did well it was more noticed and didn't get drowned in a million other races.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

Not necessarily. In Econ 101 world every market agent would be compensated according to their market value. But the real world is often very different from Econ 101 world. In the real world there are all kinds of externalities, indirections, and market distortions. Those responsible for creating value in the real world are often not compensated commensurate to their contribution. (and of course the other way around).

+1

I really dig this idea.

Side note, saw a car with one of your bikes on its roof today. That was my first time seeing one in person. Sexy looking bike.

[haven't read past pg 1]

edit: Ben Kanute was at TBI on multiple days

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

When did the “race” cease when the pros are absent. There is still a leader, and race between them and others at the tip. That itself is “the race”. There are still plenty fast people that would make it entertaining for viewing, and the history of the course would still bring thousands, would still bring the sponsors, and would still bring the camera crews and NBC. Shit, I think the pros would even still show up because of the competition. Losing the “pro field” would not even be a bump in this continual train that moves along.

That being said I think the Pros are important. What they do is “next level” and makes it all the more amazing for the layman to see and realize what the pro can do. I think losing them overall would not be a positive, but at the same time it’s deterrent would be minor. You’d still have the “wow” factor, and maybe the average person would rather see the “wow” from an average person with a job, not someone that does the sport “full time”. I think the Pros are a plus, but they aren’t needed. They don’t “make the event”. The AGs pay for, and their experiences “make the event”. Still a very sharp pointy tip in the AG field.

As the creator of this post, and given some opinions that I read, maybe I should have been a little more clear:

1 - To support a Pro does not necessarily means paying a salary, performance fees or similar - start ups and small local companies can make a huge difference even without directly financing anyone.

2 - Supporting a Pro means that the Pro is also supporting the company/product so it is obviously a two way road. Nobody deserves anything just by getting a Pro license.

3 - Being able to attract talent and having more competitive races is for sure one of the ways to make the sport and its industry bigger and I challenge anyone to say the opposite.

4 - Let´s say I am a NY Yankees fan (I am not). I have multiple ways to give that franchise return if I buy their merchandise, spend money in the tickets or simply watching live game on TV due to the impact of ratings in the commercials cost and the cut to MLB and NYY.

There is nothing similar I can do for the people I admire as a high performance Triathlon fan. One vehicle I have to help is by using the money I am spending in the sport wisely in a way that I know will, even in a very marginal way, make my sport idols life a little less hard.

A final thought.
It is not only about being a fan.
I am a 50-55 AG and I take the sport seriously. Just being able to access and use information shared online by pro athletes had a huge impact on my performance and competitiveness. So some Pro athletes have done much more for me than I would be able to return back.

One is surely Thomas Gerlach, other is Cody Beals, another is Tyler Butterfield and I could go on forever but these three alone gave me at least a 10 minutes head start in my last 70.3 just by sharing openly their experiences. And I won my AG by 1 minute and a half.

Sorry if I am offending anyone with my original statement.

Maybe I am being narrow minded here but them I would like to hear about how can I give something back to those guys.

Completely agree...which is why I try to help them out when I can.

Now this is a different tune/direction and I agree with much more. I know I sure appreciate TG on here, and when I get a chance I’ll use his links for buying stuff because I know he gets a piece from it. It’s the least I can do. There is a value to that knowledge and I have no problem paying for it (if I get value). But giving to a company that doesn’t know/directly contribute back to the person or why I went there...yeah, I don’t really support that concept. I want that company to KNOW that Athlete X is why i’m Spending money.

Maybe I am being narrow minded here but them I would like to hear about how can I give something back to those guys.

Anyone can help the pros if they want. You could help drum up sponsors, buy the products they use or even write them a check if you feel so inclined. The problem is the wording of "duty" as if just our involvement in triathlon means we should support pros or only buy products from companies that support pros. I have no more duty to help a pro triathlete than I have a "duty" to help someone who can't work or pay their bills. We all have the choice to do it and that's the way it should be.

I usually don't like posting much on ST as it can cause a whole bustle of controversy and things can be taken in the wrong context. As a small start up business owner (MORF), it can be a bit risky. That said, I would like to make a few observations from the small business perspective. Here are the Pro's and Con's of it (pun intended!!)

Pro's - Antony reached out to us a little over a year ago with the desire to significantly lower his CDA. He has a PHD in Biomechanics and has a great mind, willing to do radical things for radical results. If you look at his riding position, I think it is safe to say (in my opinion) he has the most extreme and efficient riding position in triathlon (again, my opinion, but I am biased). We have worked closely over the last year to refine the product, learn from the many miles he has put on them which resulted in a better product. At IMTX last year, we spent some time discussing the product as it was designed as we were considering releasing it. I genuinely asked him, is there anything we need to change? He told us to get rid of the internal cable mechanisms. He was right, so we went back to the drawing board, it set us back 6-8 months and cost us a lot of money. But he was right, and it is his feedback as a pro that I value, we decided to make the change. The value of our relationship has been huge for us. But the best part is, through this experience, Antony and Mathilde have been like family to us. When he told me about a pretty huge offer, but the team wouldn't let him run the MORF bar, I was heart broken for him and I told him if he had to go, he should do it because it is what is best for him. He turned it down to stay with us. That is a true partnership and I look forward to working with him for years to come. I tell this story because I think this is the way the relationship between a business and a pro should be.

Con's - Sometimes it doesn't work out and no matter how hard you try to make it a positive experience, it results unfavorably. Thomas is a good example of that. I reached out to Thomas and we met with him in Florida, he tried the bars out and had some great conversations about it. Initial feedback was good, but he wanted to do some due diligence. Ultimately he decided not to join us in our journey which I respect his decision. I would rather have someone who believes in the product than someone looking for a paycheck. We definitely agree on that. Thomas has made that decision something that appears to be part of what defines him as a pro as we have seen several times in bringing it up on ST. He has warned folks of varying risks with the product on ST as well as negatively commenting on several of the articles written by folks trying our product. I'll take the commentary to heart, learn from it and try to continue to make the product better. But ultimately that specific interaction with a pro was not one that could be seen as positive. I'm not losing sleep over it as I want to hear all the feedback, good or bad to make our product better. Certainly no hard feelings, just an example of another type of interaction with a pro.

General Observation - I have reached out to a few other pro's and surprisingly they don't respond. Some are responsive, but more commonly they don't. This initially surprised me as I genuinely sympathize with how difficult it must be to sustain oneself being a pro. But they are quite busy training and trying to sustain their busy lives so I understand. We have changed our perspective a bit. We would love to have Pros join our family who are interested in us and reach out to us. Antony is a perfect example of that. And in return we will develop tech around them to make them faster. Our focus now is finishing up production fixtures / manufacturing. Once we are commercial, we'll look a little harder at sponsorship strategy, but that's it for now.

Final Observation - The cycling industry is an extremely hard industry. When you break down the retail price of a product, everyone needs some margin just to stay in business. No one side of the business is extremely profitable, on the contrary. Bike shops need significant margin just to keep the doors open (inventory, personnel, shop leases, etc), distributors need significant margin to finance the inventory and distribution network and the OEMs need to design, test, manufacture, and market their product for approximately 25-40% of retail. We do this because we love the sport and we love the tech. For me, it's about the ride (figuratively and literally) and the experiences and the relationships we form along the way.

So that's my perspective as a small start up business owner. My tone is all positive, apologies if it appears otherwise.
Thanks!
Frank
http://www.morf-tech.com

---

Thanks,
Frank

http://www.morf-tech.com

I have to laugh at this post. This is a business decision if it is in your company interest that you need to market through sponsoring a pro to increase revenue or not. Some small brands will sponsor a pro to get their name out there and some bigger brands will sponsor many in an attempt to make their brand seem the best and most well used.

I buy my products based on research of what works best for me and what I would want on my bike or be seen in. You have companies like Dash saddles who I am pretty sure don't sponsor anyone but I am quite happy to pay an outlandish sum of money to have the most comfortable and IMO coolest looking saddle on my bike. If you forgo the best product for your needs or even what could save you money then you can feel good based on your morals but I think your a fool.

Dan, where the h*ll is the "Like" button? We need one of those...

Most people in this day don't understand the value and importance of sponsorship and most companies dont know how to leverage the athletes they sponsor for an ROI.

We dont live in the Newspaper world anymore. Putting your logo on a jersey in hopes that it gets visibility in the front page of the paper when that athlete wins the big race isn't how it's done. The problem with current sponsorship is very few understand how to do it properly on both sides.

Team/Athletes: They think they can sell space on a kit for someone to put their logo. They offer naming rights to the team (which has SOME value but not as much as it used to). They offer to post photos of their products on their social media account and tag the sponsors in them. Which is useful but not for the reasons they think and because they don't leverage their platforms correctly.

Product Suppliers/Companies: They look at who has the most followers. They look at where and with whom their products will get the most visibility. *Kona Winning Pro* uses Felt bikes you say! Well then a bunch of AG athletes will probably rush out and buy Felt, right? There's definitely something to that, but it's still not the most effective way to do it. And usually only works at the highest level and with the top athletes.

Sponsorship has three key aspects in order to see a return on investment. Social media has created a world of Audience, Influence, and Sentiment. And content is central to this world. Content is King as they say.

Athletes need to focus not on endorsing their products but becoming influencers in their community (aspect #1). "I really love my Skechers, you should wear Skechers too" posts don't work. Athletes need to post content that is organic and natural and tells a story. The products are tools and resources for the athlete. Their use of sponsor products needs to play a role in their journey not just act as a walking billboard. Unfortunately not all athletes have a knack for this. It takes some thought, creativity, and most importantly, a personality. Something Type As struggle with.

Companies need to recognize that their biggest asset is their audience. And they need to leverage their influencers to increase their own audience and communicate with the audience they already have (aspect #2). The biggest benefit sponsorship can have to a company is NOT product endorsement but providing the company sources and avenues for content creation. Look at the Felt website. It's chock full of videos and blogs about the athletes who use Felt. And those articles aren't just, "X uses Felt, Felt is awesome, look at them win stuff" The content is actually interesting. "How X athlete went from back of the pack to front pack swimmer" or "How Y Athlete went from party animal to Pro" (written by the athlete). Sponsorship creates a content pool. And a company that doesn't have a good creative department (or person if its a small business) won't be able to leverage that content pool usefully.

When a business can leverage their sponsored athletes to develop interesting engaging content that ALSO happens to feature their products or ways the company supports that athlete, it creates positive sentiment. And this is the final aspect. Sentiment is huge (aspect # 3). How people perceive your business drives more sales than anything else. You need to make good product, granted. But what separates the IA from the P1 is sentiment and how that company has hooked you.

As to the original argument. I agree. Companies should support Pro level athletes. It's a rough life for Pros. Particularly for triathletes. But they should engage with their athletes, develop useful relationships and work with the athletes they sponsor to produce and develop the kinds of content that work. Offering X athlete a free bike because he/she won a bunch of races is not useful for the athlete nor the sport. Because it doesn't foster longterm partnerships that will ultimately benefit the athlete, the company and the sport. Somebody already mentioned that pro athletes need to be PART of the industry. 100% Agree. But maybe for slightly different reasons. Athletes need to participate in the industry by becoming brands themselves. Not just 'popular people'. That's the difference between popularity and being an influencer on social media. You need be an athlete when training and racing, and a marketing/business guru when not. It sucks for athletes who find that duality to be difficult to manage. And companies can help by using their resources to teach the athletes how to do it, and not just giving them a bike, but resources to create content around that bike. That's how companies should help Pro athletes. Instead of handing a bike over and saying, "Do whatever, but if the metrics dont look good, we won't be sponsoring you next year".



(Pro Triathlete and Social Media & Digital Marketing/Comms Consultant)

---

Pro Triathlete
Social Media & Digital Comms Consultant
Head Coach - HumanPowerPerformance.com

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing"

IMO, this type of thinking causes people to overplay the Pro hand. I will do 9 races this year. All of them more expensive than last year. All of them with bigger starting fields than last year.

None of them will have a Pro.

Sanders, TO, Gwen, Jan, Ryf, Jackson...any of them could rack next to 99% of the competitors in my races and that person would have no idea who they were. Hell, Potts, Bozzone, Don, Hoffman could rack next to me and I'd have no idea who they were...and I follow the sport more than the average weekend warrior.

So, we are certainly not choosing races or buying gear because of them.

Never on ST have I read a post where a product was recommended simply because "X" pro uses it. And, if you come to the 9 races I will do this year, the gear in use is everything from bike cruisers with baskets, to UA compression shorts, to surfing-type wetsuits.

I can see how some of the iconic races may go away if there are no pros there. But, to say there will be a widespread impact is a stretch.

Maybe there are numbers out there on participation in "big" races vs. "little" races. I haven't looked, so perhaps extrapolating my n=1 is incorrect. But, my gut tells me, as long as your neighbor is doing triathlon, or your mom's club has a few members doing triathlon, or there is somebody in your FB circle doing triathlon, you have a fair chance of doing one.

I race a P2, largely because it was the most economical bike I could find that was still "fast". Now if Cervelo told me they would stop making tri bikes if there were no Pros, you would get my attention. Perhaps this is where the Pros argument goes...no Kona...means no Cervelos on NBC/Kona...means fewer Cervelos at local races...means Cervelo out of the tri business. I don't see that progression, but I can see how it could be argued.

My overall contention is that people who think Pros are the key to triathlon should do a season of non-pro races and talk to those participants to see how Pros impact their triathlon existence. You'll find they don't. At all.

Full disclosure: I follow Sanders and he has impacted my behavior. The swim coach at the Local Y gave me some tips on my stroke and recommended I get a snorkel to swim with to really be able to focus on my pull and body position. Meh. Then I saw Sanders swimming with one and I thought, "maybe this Y swim coach knows what he's talking about". Also, I am in the market for a new tri-suit and I checked out LG solely because they are all over Sanders. But, note to the Pros: Sanders has come to me. He is putting himself out there for me to consume. That I can support. However, if you think I will support your sponsors just because you are crazy fast, you are wrong. I want to root for you. I want to know who you are. It's your responsibility to come to me, not the other way around. Similarly, the only other Pros I consistently check on are Gwen, TO, and Rinny. I met TO/Rinny at Challenge AC (they took a photo with my daughter and she was star struck) and I enjoy Gwen's new videos.

Agree with what DJRed said above.

As to the bolded from another commenter: what Kona buzz outside of ST? Most of that buzz is generated from AGers anyway regarding their experience. Are you using the NBC coverage that is shown 2 months after the race as evidence? I may be wrong but doesn't WTC buy that coverage?

+1. Make your own luck.

Your trip in the wayback machine reminds me of when Gerard Vroomen would hang out at Endurosport on weekends, trying to convince people to take a chance on his bike. He wore the same ratty old sweater and jeans every time and looked desperately in need of a decent meal...

Thread hijack over. Carry on.

---

http://www.challengediabetes.ca
http://www.betago.ca