Ryan: my life has been substantially enhanced by my experiences with Ironman through the years. Some of my and my family’s most cherished experiences have revolved around the 30+ Ironman branded races that I and my son have participated in through the years including 4 wonderful trips to Kona. It has been a very positive force in my life that has helped me to lead a healthy, productive and happy life.

I’ve also had the privilege of getting to know many of the WTC employees personally and have been consistently impressed by their passion for our sport, their pride in their company and what they do, and the quality of the service that they have generally provided. While, I don’t know him well, in the several interactions I’ve had with Andrew, he has struck me as a reasonable business man who listens and understands the passion that we all have for this great sport. I also thought he was dealt an almost impossible hand with CoVid and he has admirably guided his company through this tough time and they have continued to put on many incredible events.

Further, I’ve frequently thought that many of the criticisms leveled against the company here on slowtwitch seemed unbalanced and on some occasions were based on a foundation of incomplete facts and a poor understanding of how capitalism, larger businesses, and the investment community work. Many Ironman haters view the company through a set point of view and will always find fault and infrequently find merit.

That said, what has happened with this situation seems like a set of extremely poor and in some cases unnecessary business decisions that have alienated a large part of the Ironman ecosystem including Kona residents, many loyal volunteers through the years that are now very upset, and many Pro and Age Group athletes that make their business possible. This may very well be a existential crisis for the company that they will either learn from and pivot to a brighter future or will be an inflection point that will not allow them to continue to be the company they aspire to be. There are many alternative entities that are for sure plotting how to make the later happen. I also think the Board must be taking notice of this and discussing if they need to intervene in a major way.

What really puzzles me is why ST, which has always been, in my view, the pinnacle of rationality, seems to be jumping in front of this nightmare train for no apparent reason. WTC has really made a mess of this. A very large number of ST’s loyal constituents have expressed outrage over how this has unfolded over the last two-three years, and not just the haters, but it seems that ST has circled the wagons and is now reflexively defensive, when I would have expected ST to continue its long history of balanced objectivity. I worry that ST is following down the same alienating path that Ironman is currently on. There is a lot of legitimate negativity here that doesn’t seem like it’s being addressed well by either IM or ST…


Having said all of this, I recognize that I have neither the facts, experience nor industry relationships that you all have. (And as an aside, I had my knee replaced yesterday and my brain is probably scrambled a bit by the pain and meds). But I find this all quite puzzling.

My apologies if my comments are unfair or misinformed. They are intended as respectful thoughts about two organizations I have admired deeply…

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

I think a better question is how many people on the other thread actually will qualify for World Championships in the current window.

Anyone else needs to back away. It is only impacting those people that can actually qualify and will miss doing Kona in 2023.

I also havent read any comments from Kona qualified women that are upset about this either

---

------------------
it doesnt matter what you say, someone on here will pick a fight over it.

Very fair point. The only person I know who is qualified is an athlete I coach and he’s debating racing Nice or wait 2024 but not upset at all. Not a climber and not a good descender so worried about Nice.

Ultimately, here's where I sit on the matter.

1.) My reading of the tea leaves is that, well, IM got told they could have a two day race by Hawaii, up until they got told (after the race this year) that that was no longer on the table, no matter how much negotiation IM was offered.

2.) That puts IM in the unenviable position of either:
a.) pulling back on the number of slots they had on offer to revert to a single day race;
b.) ripping everything out of Kona;
c.) coming up with the solution being architected here.

Ultimately I think this is the best of those bad decisions. You think men who registered for Kona would be outraged...what about the women who flocked to races with WFT slots now being told "on second thought, those don't exist?" It's for the first time, really, men are being inconvenienced by IM decisions.

But if we're really looking for the root issue -- IMO, everyone's directing their anger in the wrong direction.

3.) As said elsewhere in this thread -- it's my understanding that it was not until very recently that IM was made aware that Kona was full bore no-go. I think that they've been working for a while on potential alternatives while still holding out hope that they could come to a two day in Kona resolution. In retrospect, I think they'd like to have potentially made an announcement along the lines pre-November races of "all WCs for 2023 TBD, slots will be allocated via email once determined." But I also think that they honestly thought they'd get to an amicable solution with Kona for two days by now versus what we're seeing the last few days.

4.) As I stated elsewhere -- we have written about athletes needing to be flexible with building travel plans -- when women's races were changed in St George, through COVID, etc. I didn't think that was a particularly pressing question given we did the same line of questioning last year.

5.) I think a *lot* of the issue is the lack of confirmation on the final actual location. Which is understandable.

I don't think IM was going to win no matter what they did.

I appreciate your feedback. I do find it somewhat amusing that people seem to not remember my exploits from 2015, which ultimately led to me working for Slowtwitch. I guess it makes me about as balanced as I can be when it comes with IM.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

They could totally do this. And charge $6000 to race in Kona.

Would those complaining then be happy as the tradition of racing Kona as the World Championships would continue?

Ironman as a business would make money. And those wanting the World Championships to stay in Kona would get what they want.

But we all know, the same people would complain and expect entry to be cheaper. Most likely people that cant qualify anyway.

Splitting is the best option for all.

Ironman makes money as a business. Tick.
Athletes can still race in Kona. Tick.

---

------------------
it doesnt matter what you say, someone on here will pick a fight over it.

I think that’s very fair Ryan and I appreciate your transparency. The thing that I think WTC is missing is that some formerly very loyal customers no longer believe what they are saying on many important issues. There are many examples in this and the other thread (and others) so I won’t belabor them here. I think it’s a mistake to generally ignore some very reasonable concerns (and some very unreasonable concerns) that their customer have raised which it feels like they are increasingly doing. I think this is a potentially dangerous path for IM. It feels different now…

When I was in school (back in the 1800s) we studied a bunch of corporate communication crises and this current IM controversy feels like some of them. Sometimes, it’s better to be more of a fellow human recognizing the anger, confusion, disappointment and empathetically engage in a messier conversation where you demonstrate that you hear the complaints and that you may have may have made some mistakes than corporate executives delivering well prepared, soothing, but ultimately unhearing corporate talking points.

The litmus test is whether or not the anger, confusion, etc is really addressed and if the customers are ultimately willing to grant a pass and stay customers. IM has been such a positive to me for so long I’ll continue to give that pass because they earned it in the past. I’m worried that many will not and this might get away from them.

I sincerely hope this won’t happen. It would be a shame because IM is the heart and soul of our sport….

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

I think IM recognizes that they had a bit of a credibility problem here, just given how much the rumor mill was already churning before the tri-today.com report. It's why they gave Andrew media availability today to talk through some of it.

Ultimately, I think one of the things that we have to also recognize, beyond the customer side, is that there are humans on the IM side having to make decisions that they know are going to be deeply unpopular or cause pain to their consumers. It's a thankless task, made even more difficult by the fact that this is, by and large, an event that many people define themselves by.

My takeaway is that -- they hear you. They're hurt, too -- I don't think they ever wanted to have IMWC's outside of Hawaii. I think they got the raw end of the deal out of the County after being told "yep, you're good to go forward."

It's going to be an interesting couple of years.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Ultimately, I think one of the things that we have to also recognize, beyond the customer side, is that there are humans on the IM side having to make decisions that they know are going to be deeply unpopular or cause pain to their consumers. It's a thankless task, made even more difficult by the fact that this is, by and large, an event that many people define themselves by.

Having worked at IM for a handful of years, I can attest that there are humans on their side, but I can 100% guarantee you, all they care about is revenue, profit, and not loosing their own jobs. They don't care about the communities, the sponsors, the athletes, their fellow employees. I know personal friends still there at the VP level and they had no clue about what has transpired the last few days. These decisions were made by a very small group of folks (one of whom should be fired for leaking this story) based on personal ass-saving tactics and how can they as individuals show to ownership how much more revenue they are able to generate. And not to belabor it but shame on Andrew for announcing in July that the 2-day format would be back in 2023. I have 0 trust in this organization and I would not put it past them to move the men's race out of Kona in 2024 and F those already registered/qualified/ etc. again. And guess what? They don't care.

You had me in that first half of your post, I will give you that :) But still, I agree with you overall and appreciate that post.
My only "but" is that I think we are overestimating the loud voice of the "nay-sayers" or haters of these decisions from WTC.

WTC / IM has a very good daily indicator, which tells them how well they market their product and their company (and decision to make changes to same)
That is simply just "Number of daily race sign-ups", i.e. the demand of their product. I do not know this number or trend for same, but my impression is that it is going well, it is on the rise. They are beating the competition.

Hence, as a business, you will recognize that YES, there are some negative voices out there, but overall you are still on the right track decision-wise and the money-machine (which is what a privately held company always is) is doing well.

The old "guard" of hardcore, ripped KQs is pissed (incl. myself) that Kona is loosing its magic (let´s say that is a max of 1000 AGs & Pros), but the general AG public, those 100000s AGs who pays the bills, are silently happy and buying more WTC / IM.

Just my 2c

“I think they got the raw end of the deal out of the County after being told "yep, you're good to go forward."“

Sorry, not buying it. This is 100% the result of Ironmans push for clearly unsustainable growth in the location.

It didn’t take a rocket scientist to look at Kona this year and say “this isn’t gonna work long term.” But that didn’t keep IM from their “commitment” to not “going backwards.”

If IM wanted to keep the race in Kona, they could. They chose not to. Truthfully, they made that decision long before Kona told them they would only allow a 1 day race.

Whether it’s a good business decision or not remains to be seen. But don’t act like Kona made the decision for them. That’s what bothered me most in the article… don’t let IM point fingers. You make a decision, own it!

Here is (IMO) a good read on the topic from Tri247

Not surprised that Mark Allen is between "meh" and supporting his employer ...

I too don’t understand why people take what he says at face value.

Messick is saying, in effect, “we had a deal with Kona and were screwed over”. It might not even be true. It could be “20% true”, as in “the mayor said he would do his best to keep the two day format and we had to start selling slots so we assumed he’d get it done”.

I understand that Ryan and Messick are on a good footing and I don’t want to be too harsh, but one problem that doesn’t exactly evoke trust is that Ironman were forced to come out with their statement by a leak and the Tri Today article. People were booking flights and rooms and buying qualification race entries and committing financially in other ways while Messick was already aware there might be a problem with the venue. Almost as if some IM employees had reached out to Tri Today out of exasperation as they were watching people be deceived (this is solely speculation on my part! But that’s the impression and it weighs on his credibility).

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

that is very different than saying we had singend a contract for a 2023 2 day event .... which is the usal time ironman announces venues.

This was my take as well. That article forced their hand. They had no intentions making the announcement this week. It’s scary to think that they would have likely waited another 4-8 weeks and how many more races to say anything publicly. Messick’s comment on wanting to let the athletes know is bs. He got caught with his pants down and this is him trying to save face. And he did a pretty poor job at it. He would gain a ton of respect for me and he just came out and said… “we screwed up”.

---

blog

So well written Randy.

---

member CupCake Cartel

I think it’s fair to say that they got forced to act by a more reputable source (remember, Tri-Today was probably the first site with sources — everything else was “we’re hearing” or “rumor”). And I think it a fair critique that they should have had something out along the lines of “we are working through logistics of the 2023 IM World Championships. During this time we would recommend not booking travel, especially non-refundable items.”

And, well, the media availability with Andrew probably should have been *before*, not after, the release. Because I understand why it looks like they’re in full blown CYA mode.

That all being said—it is a standard, customary practice within race production to open registration when you have preliminary agreements in place (whether verbal or written). As other places have reported—IM had that in July, 2022 for 2023 when announcing the qualification cycle. (That’s also been confirmed by other sources not named Messick.)

But I also think Messick’s in a delicate spot there. He can’t say “they screwed us!” unless they decide to rip everything out of there—still need to be able to go back and work with this team. And I believe them to be cognizant of how important Kona is. But ultimately, do you:

a.) piss off everyone who registered for races with the expectation of there being two days worth of slots, or
b.) piss off those already registered for Worlds

And, well, they chose B.

I think they expected a deeply unpopular initial response. And I don’t think it’s wrong to say that they wish they had a mulligan on timing. But I also think they did everything they reasonably could to keep it in Kona—including splitting the race dates by six months. Kona wouldn’t play ball.

And yes I am in total agreement with Messick—they couldn’t go back to one day. Too much earned media with Sodaro. Too much work around Women For Tri. I think we’d see far more outrage media from that decision.

It is interesting that, in other forums, this decision is being praised—particularly in women’s only groups and those that are more Euro-centric

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

You'd think after the past couple years, folks would have clued in to this. But no, they book the cheapest non refundable airbnb and airfare they can find and then bitch and moan when shit goes sideways, regardless of why.

I may be wrong and somebody please confirm/correct me if I am but it's my memory that the mayor was at the IM banquet in Kona and confirmed the two days there also.

I’m not sure I fully understand this angle. Will this actually be good for women and get them more viewership and also increase IM’s overall participation/viewership? History from other sports would indicate the viewing will be lopsided and everyone will tune in to the men’s race and forget about the women’s, especially with the races being in different months rather than same weekend, netting them even less exposure and attention than with the traditional formats.

Maybe it’s just me but if the goal is to get more women to compete or have more attention/ad revenue etc. drawn that way, the blunt force approach doesn’t actually work if the attention isn’t going to go that way naturally.

I enjoy watching the women’s side of the sport and want to see it so well, maybe I just don’t understand how things work, but separating the races from a gender aspect feels like a fast track to unintended consequences to me.

1.) I believe this is why it was critical that the women's race was in Kona for year 1. It gets the historic date and venue. We, as journalists, have an obligation to tell more / better stories out of that experience. It's different. It forces us to be different.

2.) We're just going to have to find out in terms of viewership. The numbers towards the end of the women's race on Thursday were about as strong as they were at any point on Saturday for the men -- which leads me to think that by giving them a proper Saturday race date, you'll see better engagement.

Will there be unintended consequences? Maybe. As I told Dan on the phone the other day, this has an opportunity to be a broader "Title IX" moment for the sport, especially in places where there, in theory, *should* be more female participation. But we'll see.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

2.) That puts IM in the unenviable position of either:
a.) pulling back on the number of slots they had on offer to revert to a single day race;


In my opinion, this would have been the fairest solution. Then 2024 onwards come up with whatever new solution they find optimal and communicate that in time for people to make informed decisions.

I don't think that's particularly fair to the thousands of customers who had chosen races based on prior slot allocation -- which is, just doing some back of the napkin math, a larger cohort than those who had already claimed slots (and the subset of those that may have already made travel arrangements).

Ultimately I think keeping two days was the better of the bad options when trying to satisfy the most number of customers.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Does he know that all economy fares are non refundable? Or has he lost completely touch with reality? Does he expect every athlete to fly business to Hawaii?

I fly main cabin, for the most part, on Delta. I have middling status with them. But I can cancel a flight and still retain credit on that airline to fly to another destination. I might get dinged for a change fee, but I can still take that money I already paid and apply it to another trip. It's what we're doing for our week in Utah -- we had ~$750 in flight credits from a separate cancelled trip to burn up so we're flying Delta with the baggage fee less than what we'd normally do (fly Southwest).

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter