Ironman needs a Tiger Woods.... a Wayne Gretzky....
Someone needs to capitalize on the opportunity to captivate the masses to be interested in the sport.
On Saturday (< 48 hours from now), there's an 8 hour major event happening, and if you polled 100 Americans today whether they know (1) what Ironman is, (2) where the big race is, and (3) when that big race is taking place, I think less than a handful would be able to answer the 3rd part.

From my perspective, the trick is to get revenue from "new" revenue sources (apart from the athlete participants) by building a fan base. I believe that people respect athletics. I believe that these athletes are quite possibly the most talented athletes in the world (any / all sports). I believe that the sport doesn't capitalize on their comparative talent.

At 9pm this Saturday night (EST), there's a highly skilled group of athletes that will be in the final stages of the biggest race in our sport. Yet, we'll probably be watching the ALCS baseball game (Houston vs Boston) or a college football game. We likely won't be wearing a "Lionel Sanders" uniform or hat (or any of our favorite athletes we chime in about within this forum) as we live stream it with 100s or our friends at the local bar / pub / home. We will likely be watching it on our iPhones by ourselves as 'we' watch them do what they do. The athletes need to figure out how to sell themselves (merchandise their brand image) to make themselves household names. I'd love for them to get the revenue they deserve.

You can only market yourself so much when your in a niche sport. ETA: You don't become household names on FB live feeds, or IM tracker feeds. You become household names when your on ESPN or Fox the 2 broadcasts that you mention for the baseball/and football. Until then your stuck playing for peanuts, unfortunately. And the only way to breakout of the niche sport will have nothing to do with Ironman...that's the truth in the matter.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

There are countless reasons why this would never happen, one being that an IM is a 8hr to 17hr activity, and beyond boring to watch live let alone on TV. It will never capture anything above fringe

Sorry, but that's a fantasy, I've been paying attention to Kona on race day for more than 20 years now and this is the best coverage of the event that there's every been. I'm certainly going to enjoy it for the next couple of days. It may continue to improve as more people around the world starting doing tris and video technology improves, but it will never be more than a niche pro sport.

I witness college students now riding e-scooters and e-skateboards around campus instead of walking or riding a bicycle. Tonight when I was leaving the college rec center after swimming I saw an advertisement for a new intramural competition - e-sports. That certainly doesn't give me hope that some day they will spend their free time watching more triathlon that adults do now.

Maybe if was 1990. It's 2018. There's an entire generation that's effectively tuning out of classic network cable sports, and glued to their phone apps (for better or worse). Better to chase the future than chase history.

But even then, I think triathlon would be wasting energy in an inferiority complex comparison with the MLB or NFL. There's nothing wrong with being a niche sport. There are plenty of niche sports doing great, with well-compensated pros and a steady, engaged fan base. Just don't be a crappy niche sport.

It's an sport especially at the IM distance has zero, repeat zero media appeal for the masses. So it's not going to be on outdated network broadcasts or your 2018 younger generation app friendly phone connections. It's most important event is turned into a for profit infomercial every year.....they win emmy's not for the racing but for the cute cutting edge music and "stories"...that's how LC racing is marketed.

It's as I said, the only opportunity triathlon will ever have is at the short course variety.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

IDK, I'm a roadie, but see triathletes 'grammin constantly, with followers. Several recent popular threads here are basically based on cross-posted social media. And Facebook's analytics are top notch. They see something. Though your grim get-off-my-lawn negativity may be right. Thanks WTC I'd stuck between being a race promoter and a resort vacation promoter for the affluent with catered walk-jogs. That's a tough line to straddle

if your baseline is instagram and youtube threshold analytics, I think we are on complete different wavelengths on what constitutes successful mass media generated sports.

But that's cool.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

That hurts my feelings.

The presence or otherwise of a Pro field does not affect my entering an event. That's from someone who will be glued to the Kona coverage tomorrow night. I enter events based on the course and/or the atmosphere.

---

29 years and counting

That post says more about him, than you Andrew :)

My post above about not being influenced by Pro fields would appear to play in WTC's favour. However, I have abstained from WTC events for over 3 years now, through a combination of 'been there done that' and the perceived cost/benefit. I hope tomorrow runs smoothly for you.

---

29 years and counting

That's kind of my point.... Right now, there's only so much money to give the pro's. My entry fee as an amateur is not an entry fee to fund the pro purse. My entry fee is to fund my experience and the support I receive from the race. (I have no desire to pay their income by signing up for my race.)

To generate higher purses, the sport (and/or the athletes) should figure out how to drive additional revenue and become household names. It always surprises me that the Tour de France has so much appeal and many of those riders are household names and the race is known by 'everybody' while Triathlon hasn't been able to crack that nut and figure out how to market themselves to the masses. Maybe it's a European thing?

I think there's potential for a character athlete from IM to figure out how to reach the masses. He / She would need a support team and figure out how to get the sport to be well known.... and if not the sport, at least self promote themselves to be well known.

I want them to figure it out and be paid more. I'd buy a 'Lionel Sanders' t-shirt right now if there was one to buy and I'd probably wear it tomorrow while following the race.

You should write a book about the gut wrenching experience of being the CEO of a company with a mentally deluded customer base. And maybe the lovely experience of meeting the expectations of Private Equity month after month and year after year. You sir have a charmed life! :-)

---

------------------
http://dontletitdefeatyou.blogspot.com

Well, let's just say in a IM you need 10 hours wall to wall media coverage, no network is going to give you a 10hr wide window unless you come with a major broadcast sponsor whom is paying for the air time...then you'll get an ad split which hopefully nets you back some of the sponsor money that went to the network. Can't do that for every IM. For 70.3 probably 5 hours straight of coverage. You may be able to break that down significantly with all of the major networks as they have multiple platforms.

As I said previously...the reason why xFit is on CBS is not because they're getting money, but because they are able to buy the air time because CBS Sports won't be getting into any bidding wars for content, the revenue from rights they purchase is nowhere near what ESPN fronts. Now...this is where some of things may change with the NCAA programs. ESPN will broadcast anything your college has for free on ESPN+ if you have an ESPN server on campus...and most D1 schools do.

So if you wanted 10 hrs of broadcast coverage by NBC...you'd have to look at their cycling coverage. 100% on sports gold, some on NBCSN and little if any on the peacock. For the WCs you can definitely get a coverage split with them of something like: 1hr at the start, 4hrs on the Olympic Channel, 3 hrs on NBCSN, and the final hour on NBC again with 100% on NBC Sports Gold. I think for the rest of the content it would be on NBC Sports Gold instead of Facebook live...but would you pay $60/year for that via OTT? That's what I pay for Rugby. But I get: Aviva Premiership, Champions/Challenge Cup, 6 Nations, and the RWC.

I'm guessing that there is a desire to watch triathlon, or there's desire for sponsors to have their names activated via a broadcast and that's why we've got FB Live events. Personally I hate FB Live and would rather this be on youtube live because you can just throw it up on the big screen if you have a roku/appletv without doing airplay.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

This is not in reply to any specific comment, just more generic comment to the whole thread:

Did you guys listen to the interview with Messick? He’s well spoken. He also states something that is very important to keep in mind on the topic of whether pro’s add value to the IM community and in the end, do pros bring $rev to Ironman. That’s the real question, BTW, if any company spends money on sponsorship, prize money, or advertising, they expect to get something out of it. Pros need to show they enhance the event, they bring more paying age groupers to the event, and that sponsors of the event sell more of their product by sponsoring the event or the pro. I believe Pros do add value...but let me continue on with the Messick statement:

Messick states their corporate purpose is to “deliver a race experience that people say “wow”, I want to do that”. “We are looking for ways to capture people’s imagination to do more” to…go bigger. He left off “go faster”, however, which I think is a key drive of most age groupers. Pro triathletes inspire age groupers to set and achieve PRs…and then set new ones because the Pro’s set a benchmark that is always better. Imagine a world of no pros…the bar would be set at ~9hrs for a 140.6 and some of the top AG’ers would achieve it…but knowing you are 1-8hrs slower than the pros gives all age groupers a lifetime of chasing PRs, because you’ve show them what is possible. Do you think all the amateur golfers out there watch golf on TV because it’s riveting and exciting?? No, they watch to see how to do it right, how to get better, and see what is possible and what they can aspire too with their own game!

Pros – how are you inspiring others to do more races, to become faster, to be like you? Are you someone who represents themselves “worthy” of being replicated?

BTW – A triathlon “union” of pro’s recently tried to form, but hasn’t received much support, because as stated earlier in this forum the current pros are barely getting by in a short career and it’s difficult to see immediate results by striking or holding out.

There are things though that are in your control. Individual sponsorship $ are down for triathletes…even from industry sponsors. But why would a company pay money to a pro to use their equipment if the pro would use the equipment anyway? There are many pros who don’t have a bike sponsor yet are out there promoting the bike in the race and in pictures of themselves on their bike with the bike name front and center all over the bike frame. If you aren’t being paid, are at least getting the product free, don’t advertise for it…cover it, paint over it! No wheel sponsor?? Why are you advertising for them? They have no reason to pay you if you are already promoting their product for free. Is Nike giving you $?, cover the swoosh on your shoes!

Are you helping AG’ers achieve their dreams…you have to educate and motivate. You don’t think you’d be recognized at a race? Is it because you show up right before the race (“cause you have your routine”) and don’t talk to anyone and then leave right after the race? Stick around, encourage them, cheer them on, give them advice… help the event organizer. Oh and one other thing…can event organizers count on the Pro’s showing up? Can they make a big deal promoting their race because you’re on their start list or are they worried that you might not show up, like the 20-40% of pros that sign up for a race but never show up and don’t even notify the organizer?!? If you commit to a race, show up and be part of the promotion that gets more age groupers to show up and test themselves on the same course as the Pros. Just because you have a runny nose doesn’t give you the right to bail on a commitment. Again, only do this if you expect to be treated and paid like a pro.

Back to Ironman, and whether they can afford to pay pro’s even though their parent company is in debt? Dalian Wanda did not pay even close to $1B for WTC as someone stated in this forum. They paid $650 million. A $350M delta can’t be called an exaggeration, it’s just plain wrong. Don’t think Dalian Wanda didn’t do its due diligence on profitability nor didn’t know how to value access to a key demographic that they wanted…they are an ENTERTAINMENT company that understands marketing and demographics (fit, driven, successful with high disposable income and willingness/ability to travel??). A year after buying WTC they bought a Hollywood studio for $3.5B. They bought AMC theatres as well, and while they definitely overextended themselves with debt financing, WTC generates cash and profits for them. An individual IM race brings in over $1M in age grouper race fees…you think IM has more than $300-$400K in expenses each race?? Multiple that by over 100 races per year…without even including sponsorship money, IM should be making around $50M a year in profit. Sold for $650M, that’s only 13 times earnings, certainly not cheap but certainly not considered expensive either (check the P/E ratio of any public company stock you own). IM participation is also up 10% this year, great to hear!

IM can and should continue to support pros but both need to work better together in communicating their value – BOTH are very needed and add value to the sport! If after watching any of the Kona coverage and social media this past week you don’t think IM is taking advantage of the pro line up and the battles that will be waged out on the course on both the men’s and women’s side, then you are crazy. It’s not the only thing they are talking about, there are some inspiring AG stories as well, but the pro class is feeding the hype!

They paid $650 million. A $350M delta can’t be called an exaggeration, //

And as I recall, they assumed the $250million or so note on the books too, do you know something different?? So I figured abbot 900 million, which is why I said almost a billion... And I dont know what the profit is now, but it was 20 to 25 million before, so how do those numbers plug into your calculator?

You are correct on the additional $250M in debt, I had forgotten about that...on the profitability if you say it was $25m 3 years ago and they stated profitability was growing 40% a year, then I think ~$50m/year profit is a reasonable assumption. 10% growth in participation supports that profitability growth because the variable cost of each additional athlete in an event is pretty low. Soooo...an 18 P/E is about average for a company...my whole point on this was to counter the argument that the debt burden was so high that it’s an excuse to reduce the pro purse - it’s not.

Your analogy to golf there is a huge stretch. Also, people buy tickets to watch Golf, they don't buy tickets to watch Triathlon.

Wanda Group also owns Atletico Madrid. They're in it. But the reality is we are a participation sport, budgets tightened because they're increasing their event expenditure via expansion. Probably the easy one to cut is prize purses. Do they need pros? I think so, but not because any of the millions of age groupers across the world think they're gonna make it.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

IM can and should continue to support pros but both need to work better together in communicating their value – BOTH are very needed and add value to the sport!

--------

I think the whole issue and it's entirely different in short course- because Super League and MLT pay every pro triathlete in their fields and/or cover expenses for said athletes...because they have very different marketability plans (i'm pretty sure French Grand Prix "teams" cover their athletes' expenses, especially at the top level). I still think the biggest issue is that both LC pros and IM have to market something that is basically super hard to market- 10 hour single day event. So I think what we will continue to see is key pros take advantage of IG fame or youtube popularity and become "rich" of that, while the majority of the other pros simply starve. So I def think there is "social media fame" for triathletes....look at the one girl who did the 50/50, she's a "fitness model", and while I think she's a pretty damn rock solid athlete, she by no means is world class in anything other than selfie taking. So that's going to be there for a handful of athletes. The question remains how does WTC + pros work together to create a much more marketable race. That's when the money really comes in. That's when the need for unionizing, that's when both sides are truly making it. I just dont think it can mainly because it's an niche ass participation sport that's hard on the eyes.


Cycling imo is boring as hell to watch, but damn if I'll sit there and watch every boring ass "flat" stage when I know the breakaway riders will get caught and the 3 sprinters will battle it out. Same for golf- watching golf is actually pretty damn boring as it's going to take 3-4 hours of my day, but hell if I didn't sit there for years and watch every final pairings on Sundays. I'm a sports "junkie", so I'll watch just about anything. I also was a cord cutter almost 5 years ago, and only have amazon prime as "membership" viewing (just realized I get NFL Thur night games...Eli Manning suuuuucks).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You are correct on the additional $250M in debt, I had forgotten about that..//

Only problem is, that 18 multiples are very high for companies in this category. And since it is all mixed in with other Wanda sports, we really dont know what is on their books or how much they really make. Other investment bankers can chime in, but I believe 10 and under is closer to what these kind of companies can command. 18 is the average for the entire S&P 500. I have heard things about the new owners being very pissed off about this purchase, of course it is their own fault for not doing their DD on this buy. It was cleverly packaged by another venture firm(that also paid too much and had to take out a huge loan to get their money back) that knows how to hide things, and puff things up, they should have caught that stuff. Like I said, it will take many years to grow into that purchase price, and that debt is just a drag on profits that makes it take even longer.


But I agree with you, pro prize purses are not the deal breakers here, but overall a lot of positions have been cut and people fired, so a hair cut to what appears to them to be a non essential, well it was bound to happen. They would be ill advised to go further in my opinion though, there would be no Kona show(television and all the $$ that come with those eyeballs) without the pros, and the race would slowly fade to just another event, making very little money...

In line with WTC not needing pros to sell out races...planning on going out and watching an hour or so of IMAZ 70.3 because I'm a junky and it's here. There are ZERO pros registered for IMAZ 70.3.

You talked about pros providing value and inspiration...well there are a lot of pros out there and there are none at one of the largest races in North America.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

IM 70.3 AZ doesn’t pay a pro purse = no pros
One of the flattest courses on the circuit = sellout for AG’ers because AG’ers want to set their PB/PR.

I'm just going by what you wrote in saying that pro athletes need to provide value to the races themselves.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.