Alternatives to Ironman are doing it wrong

I think there is a general view from athletes that, on race day, Ironman do a decent job of putting on a race. I think recent comments from WTC also prove that they do not have the well being of the sport at heart. I used to really dislike them because of this, it still annoys me. But what annoys me more is that there is not much being done to change that.

I came to the conclusion that WTC are doing absolutely nothing wrong. They put on a decent race, they make an absolute fortune from us. Their goal is to make money, not further the sport and they do that well. It has got to the point where they are categorically honest about it. Their spokesperson openly asks why anyone would want to be a pro triathlete and despite competition being a great thing for the sport and us as athletes they try to run all competitors out of town. There is nothing wrong with that, they are a business and who are we to say what someone else’s goals should be? Who are we to tell a business show much to pay the pros and, if we keep buying into races that we perceive there is so much wrong with, then why would they change? I think it is clear that if WTC could sell us pencils and make more money they would drop every race tomorrow. A business will love money and not the sport. And, I guess, there is nothing wrong with that although it is a far cry from how a lot of us feel. Our triathlon cash flow goes, very much, the other way. Interviews and media features seem to revolve entirely around money, branding, sponsorship and how more races and more entrants are going to add to that. I went from dislike to impressed. WTC’s singularity of purpose is quite similar to those of us training for long course races and they achieve their goals exceptionally well.

Do Challenge want to make money? Absolutely. But i think they come at it from the fact that they will make money if they provide amazing customer care. But they are shackled.

As a marketing guy I know that the issue is the term ‘Ironman’. Who wants to do a marathon without being able to say they have done a marathon? With so many people doing this type of race as a bucket list, or first time, that term is important, and it is trademarked. It is fundamental to the success of other 140.6 distance races that the public start to separate that distance of race with the term Ironman. If the Ironman distance was called something else then I categorically believe that other companies, such as Challenge would be way more accepted by those bucket list or one time only or first timer athletes (who make up a massive percentage of the start line). They want the difficulty of the race to be recognised by their friends, daily and colleagues, which is fair. They want to say “I did an Ironman” and people know exactly what they are talking about in the same way someone say’s I did a Marathon.

In order for other companies to succeed the vernacular needs to be changed.

I know there is an Ultraman (albeit it a pretty tiny event). But, say there was a fundamental shift in what the races were called. It would take some marketing and it would take an agreement between all long course race organizers but there are not so many that it could not be done. If, as a whole, competing businesses such as Challenge started to use the term Ultra Triathlon (or similar) then public perception would shift to that being the ‘Title’ they earn. “I did an Ultra Triathlon” would then become the boast and this would open up people like Challenge or whoever to compete from a level playing field from public perception perspective. People are already switched on to the term Ultra. People get that it’s the ‘above and beyond the usual’ and it would effectively remove the stranglehold that WTC have. WTC, Challenge and other 140.6 races would become Ultra Triathlons and suddenly, like marathons, people would not care which brand put on the race as long as it was well organised. If Ultra Triathlon became that definition then suddenly people would not need to sign up for WTC races in order to have their achievement recognized without a verbal qualification.

It sounds like no small task, especially globally, but with so few organizers putting 140.6’s on (and Challenge leading the way) it really would not be as hard as people think.

The term Ironman is the key to WTC getting athletes. I don’t think any competing business is trying to attack that very key term. I see it as the foundation of why the influx of new blood athletes choose IM brand over others and by removing that huge advantage other organizers of 140.6 events can start to make greater headway. Ironman might seem like a really strong brand, but so would a company called Marathon if no-one else was allowed to be called that. Is Ironman a strong brand, or is WTC just lucky that they trademarked early? When it comes to marathons … no-one cares who the organiser is as long as they can sign up for a marathon, say they are training for a marathon, say they did a marathon, and then get a t-shirt and medal with the word marathon written on it.

I think WTC’s massive advantage (the advantage and not WTC themselves) is balanced precariously on a single foundation stone. The term Ironman. Remove that and watch change happen.

Just a thought I’ve had for a while that I finally got typed up and decided to throw into the lion’s den.

I think it’s too late for that. The term Ironman is pretty solidly embedded in the culture. Not going to make everyone stop asking for Kleenex either… They’re better off just putting on great fun events like Challenge seems to be doing and letting the brand grow.

Bang on.

People basically want to say they have done an Ironman… thats ok… hell get a tattoo as well {i have the coke and mc donalds logos on my left buttocks, but i dont show them in public because of copyright issues}.

I do think that WTC should make some sort of effort to develop the sport… well… maybe not… do we really want a private company determining / affecting the future of the sport.

+1 about the name. When I tell folks I’m doing the Challenge in Penticton they ask what kind of race it is. I still call it an ironman race. The song Happy Birthday has been copyrighted but we still sing it.

Agree with many of your points, however unfortunately I think that boat has sailed. Many of the general public think that triathlon and IRONMAN are synonymous. I remember telling people I am triathlete and they say “Ah you do Ironmans”. I’ve been doing triathlons since 2006 and did my first 140.6 at Lake Placid this year and yes I wanted my first 140.6 to be an IRONMAN for that exact reason of wanting to say that I’m an IRONMAN and not have other triathletes say oh but you didn’t do an Ironman branded race. Also the Mike Reilly experience of announcing you are an Ironman as you come through the finish is a key part of why first timers continue to flock towards Ironman branded races. What do they say at a Challenge race or other smaller even like Beach to Battleship? I don’t see people readily replacing that title with “You are an Ultra Triathlete”… they don’t announce “You are a Marathoner” when you cross the finish line at a marathon… just doesn’t have the same image or ring to it as IRONMAN.

Also I think a major component of trying to unbrand IRONMAN with being associated with the 140.6 distance is that the ONLY large scale media coverage of any triathlon, particularly 140.6 is the IRONMAN World Championships in Kona… the general public assumes that much like the Boston Marathon, which is the equivalent of the Marathon World Championships, that you can qualify at any race of that distance to go to Kona, which we obviously know is not true. A related issue that I think can be and needs to be settled is establishing a standard of what to call 70.3 and 140.6 distance events. We have Sprint Triathlons, International/Olympic Triathlons… then what? If I tell someone I’ve done 4 Half-Ironmans they know what I mean just as they do if I say I’ve done an Ironman. If I say I did a Half-Triathlon or Full-Triathlon… I get a blank stare. Part of the issue is the general public ignorance regarding triathlons and varying distances - the other is that WTC has done a fantastic job of dominating the market through branding and holding the “World Championships” of triathlon - getting anyone to break through that or surpass it is going to have a lot of work ahead of them and even then I don’t know if that will be enough. Maybe a huge media controversy regarding WTC and IRONMAN might help bring mass attention and create a foothold for change - not that I think that is the right route to go.

Triathletes (including the bucketlist one and done types) are a very small portion of the population and pro-triathletes are a fraction of that so there’s really no motivation or reason for WTC to change or better the sport and no large scale force to pressure them either. How do professional football/baseball/basketball pro-athletes get such obsurd salaries? Let’s be honest people don’t go to games to marvel in athletic feats they go for the entertainment and team loyalty which is where the merchandise money is made is tied to specific locations/hometowns/colleges/etc. This piece is missing when you look at triathlon as it’s an individual sport. Marathons are the closest comparison when it comes to “sports” and purse prises for those races are larger but there are also a lot more marathons, hence a lot more large scale races with big $ sponsors. Larger purse prises are needed to draw top athletes to their races. WTC/IRONMAN doesn’t have that much competition and most of their money is made from non-pros. I don’t care if pros are signing up for a race that I’m doing… in fact for Ironman I won’t even know what pros signed up until shortly before the race (long past registration). A lot of different issues discussed here - not sure if there is a good solution or successful way to move forward for change. But I agree if the IRONMAN term was not trademarked to WTC then they wouldn’t have the massive sucess/control that they do… smart move on their part.

I guess I just disagree with your premise that they don’t do anything to grow the sport. Simply the fact that they have added dozens of races to allow tens of thousands more people to participate is the definition of growth. They put on great events and offer consistently great experiences for their customers that makes them want to do more events. I think people make a lot of assumptions about WTC based on very little actual knowledge. Even if their motivations are completely based on profit, growth of the sport is required to achieve this.

As for finding another name, I think that’s quite the task. In addition to having 30+ years of momentum behind Ironman, it’s a great name and is impactful. “Ultra Triathlon”? Lots of syllables, kind of flat sounding. “You are an Ultra Triathlete”? I guess it could be popular with Texans when they roll out the “UT” logo.

I did write further and not grow. I think.

McDonalds grow the restaurant industry but I don’t think they do much to further it. It is also slightly unfair to say that WTC don’t but the focus in profits does hold back the sport when there is a bottleneck in the industry.

I also don’t think it is too late. The sport is new. Ironman IS embedded in OUR vernacular but each race has a massive amount of new people. They are relatively untouched. It would not take much for Challenge or others to consistently use Ultra Triathlon, in the same way that people use Ultra Running in order to deviate the accepted norm.

Even if it is incredibly difficult I still think that removing the brand from the distance is a healthy way for triathlon to progress.

As a marketing guy, what’s a better brand name? Ironman or Ultra Triathlon?

I did write further and not grow. I think.

McDonalds grow the restaurant industry but I don’t think they do much to further it. It is also slightly unfair to say that WTC don’t but the focus in profits does hold back the sport when there is a bottleneck in the industry.

I also don’t think it is too late. The sport is new. Ironman IS embedded in OUR vernacular but each race has a massive amount of new people. They are relatively untouched. It would not take much for Challenge or others to consistently use Ultra Triathlon, in the same way that people use Ultra Running in order to deviate the accepted norm.

Even if it is incredibly difficult I still think that removing the brand from the distance is a healthy way for triathlon to progress.

We actually had this terminology back in the early 90’s when not everything was so cookie cutter. I did the old World’s Toughest Tri in Lake Tahoe in 1993. It was 2 mile swim, 100 mile bike, 20 mile trail run. The run alone hard 2500 ft of vertical a lot on single track. My splits were 50 min swim, 6:00 bike, 3:40 ish run. Total time was just sub 10:40. Basically the course was designed so that your time matched your IM time, but it took into account the 11,000 ft total climbing and lack of oxygen. If you asked finishers, they would say, “I have done 8 ultra distance triathlons, 3xTahoe, 2xPenticton, 2xKona”. They would just lump them all into one bucket.

The crazy thing is that I used to count that Tahoe finish as one of my Ironmans, but now I have succumbed to the WTC marketing and don’t count that. By the way, back then, it was also an Mdot event with 30 KQ slots. It was one of those legendary bucket list events from back in the day.

i would propose “ultra distance triathlon”. Don’t standardize on the distance…anything where the winner is in the range of 8 hours+ should count as an ultra…so lets say 3 mile swim, 120 mile bike, 20 mile run would count etc etc.

Part of the problem in our sport is we are hung up on distance, taking from the running world, when in reality, we need to take from the cycling world and just go with whatever distance the local topography offers and then work with whatever elevation is useable. Because WTC is hung up on distance, it has to dumb down courses. Alpe d’huez tri is a perfect example of a race that just takes from cycling heritage and uses local topography. You got the dam at Vaujany to swim in, you go do Col d’Ornon and you go do Alpe d’huez and then you run loops at 6400 feet in the ski station. Perfect.

There is no reason why Norseman, Celtman, Swissman need to be 140.6. They could just as easily be 110 miles long and be plenty hard. But because our sport is hung up on the distance, if you want interesting topography you seemingly cannot put on a race that more than 150 crazy folks are willing to do. Would be great if there were some crazy hard mountain races that add up to only 100 miles, but still take the winners 8 hours. Then we would get beyond this cookie cutter 140.6 hang up, that means we don’t get to really totally exploit the topology…in my perfect world, im Whistler would take you from Alta Lake, Up Callaghan, down to Squamish and back up the Sea to Sky twice (2x70K loop say). And the run course would not be a loop. it would just be around 12 miles one way course with 7 miles on the current loop and then 5 miles straight to the Whistler summit (everyone gets to come down by gondola). But you can’t have races like that, right now because we are hung up on 140.6 and not enough people would do a 140.6 that also has 14,000 feet of climbing…but if it was 100 mile total the you could have more variety.

Indies should have banded together and fought it when WTC started issuing cease-and-desist around the use of “Ironman”, “Half-Iron” or any derivation of Iron.

It is a case that would have been won. “Ironman” was, and is, the common-use phrase for describing the distance. Just like “marathon”. “Ultra” and “long-course” are not common-use alternatives and do not sufficiently describe the distance.

Fighting the Ironman trademark would very likely have been won in court a slam-dunk (like Kleenex or Frisbee), according to my former girlfriend who was a trademark attorney, but every little race director rolled over when served with a cease-and-desist (including me, which changed from SavageMan Half-Iron triathlon to SavageMan 70.0).

No one little entity had the resources to fight the WTC legal army in court, but if all had banded together, the indies very likely would have won the use of the term Ironman and Half-Ironman.

Back in the day, everything was Ironman. Great Floridian Ironman. Duke Blue Devil Ironman. Hawaii Ironman. Ironman Canada. Ironman Lake Placid. White Lake Half-Ironman. Eagleman Half-Ironman. Tupper Lake Half-Ironman. The term Ironman indicated the distance, not the event owner. Now, that has changed thanks to hundreds of cease-and-desists, and there is no going back.

Once Ironman started issuing the cease-and-desist orders, it was way too late to challenge and anyone taking them to court would have lost. At that point, they were granted a registered trademark by the USPTO.

Your Kleenex & Frisbee examples are evidence of this…which is why competitors must call themselves tissues or flying discs. If the tried to use the trademarked names for their products, they would gets slapped.

If others banded together to challenge the trademark during the application process, by saying that Ironman was a common term that cannot be trademarked, they would have had a chance but by no means a slam-dunk.

You are wrong on a number of counts.

First, WTC does not have a trademark on Ironman, Marvel Comics does. Marvel has licensed it to WTC.
Second, a trademark can be ruled invalid if it is a common-use term for which there is no commonly accepted alternative.

The world will never know if WTC’s enforcement of the trademark would have held up in court. At least one trademark attorney was very confident it would not.

As a marketing guy, what’s a better brand name? Ironman or Ultra Triathlon?

I think you missed the point. We are de branding the distance. Ironman is no better (and arguably a lot more cliched) than something like wildflower or whatever. The point is to create a name for the distance that removes the ironman brand from that distance. Norseman Ultra Triathlon sound way better than Ironman Ultra Triathlon in my opinion.

It is not a brand, does not have to be ‘cool’ necessarily. It just needs to rip the hold on the term for that distance away from the competitor. After that you start assessing your brand within the market for that distance.

At the moment any newbie looking up Ironman gets just one result because that’s what that distance is known as and that’s what they look for.

I guess my major point is, without creating a different name for the Ironman distance IM as a brand are holding all the cards.

With regards to being hung up on distance I agree. It does mean you can compare to a degree, which is a draw. But I think if I were a long course RD I would pick the most obvious fight first rather than try to move people away from both a brand and a distance.

As a marketing guy, what’s a better brand name? Ironman or Ultra Triathlon?

I think you missed the point. We are de branding the distance. Ironman is no better (and arguably a lot more cliched) than something like wildflower or whatever. The point is to create a name for the distance that removes the ironman brand from that distance. Norseman Ultra Triathlon sound way better than Ironman Ultra Triathlon in my opinion.

It is not a brand, does not have to be ‘cool’ necessarily. It just needs to rip the hold on the term for that distance away from the competitor. After that you start assessing your brand within the market for that distance.

At the moment any newbie looking up Ironman gets just one result because that’s what that distance is known as and that’s what they look for.

I guess my major point is, without creating a different name for the Ironman distance IM as a brand are holding all the cards.

With regards to being hung up on distance I agree. It does mean you can compare to a degree, which is a draw. But I think if I were a long course RD I would pick the most obvious fight first rather than try to move people away from both a brand and a distance.

I know what you are saying about moving people away from a brand and a distance, but the problem is with 140.6 you’re still stuck subservient to the WTC guys. I am pretty sure they have trademarks on 140.6 and 70.3. That’s why Savageman was 70.0 not 70.3.

Well, SavageMan is “SavageMan 70.0” because we received a very strongly worded nastygram informing us that we must cease calling the race “SavageMan Half-Iron”. And, so we said “what the hell are we supposed to call ourselves? ‘Long-course?’ What does that mean. We can’t just call it “SavageMan Triathlon” because we have two races at two distances. ‘Ultra’? Again, what the hell does that mean? Without the use of the commonly accepted term “Iron” we’re going to have a lot of confusion on our hands.”

Luckily our bike course was only 55.7 so we could brand based on the total distance (70.0 and 30.0, conveniently making 100.0 for those who do both), but if our bike had been 56.0 we’d have been shit out of luck.

As an analogy, can you imagine if a company owned a trademark for the word “marathon”, “26.2”, and “13.1” and started telling all races around the world that you cannot call yourself marathon or 26.2 or 13.1? But you are free to call yourself the “Boston Long Race”. It’s absurd.

I hear what you are saying and had the “debate” with myself when signing up for my first 140.6. Do I go with the official Ironman event or choose one of the other options? I ended up with the IM partly to say that I did an “Ironman” but more for the overall experience that they put on. So from that regard, they do have a marketing/brand advantage by having the licensing rights to the name (as correctly stated earlier).

As to what the general population of non-triathlon variety, this is where I think we need to come up with some standardized description of long course events. A marathon is a standard distance, a triathlon is not. When I tell people that I do triathlons, they think that a full triathlon is the Ironman distance and anything short of that is a mini triathlon or “baby” one. So I have to then explain that there are many different types of triathlon distances - Sprint, middle distance and long course, of which the only real standard is the Olympic Distance. But crossing the line and hearing “you are a…LONG COURSE TRIATHLETE” isn’t very catchy.

Dev is heading in the right direction with this above IMO. Who cares if it is 140.6, 125, or whatever. Anything that is designed to take over XX:XX to complete, or exceeds a certain distance is considered an ULTRA-Tri event similar to any running event longer than 26.2 is an ultra marathon. What that completion time/distance above a middle distance race is can be debated but I would say it would need to be beyond the 70.3 miles or 7-ish hours to complete for the average competitor. Then when I get asked about doing triathlons I can simply say that i do Ultra tris and that would be more self explanatory.

Well, SavageMan is “SavageMan 70.0” because we received a very strongly worded nastygram informing us that we must cease calling the race “SavageMan Half-Iron”. And, so we said “what the hell are we supposed to call ourselves? ‘Long-course?’ What does that mean. We can’t just call it “SavageMan Triathlon” because we have two races at two distances. ‘Ultra’? Again, what the hell does that mean? Without the use of the commonly accepted term “Iron” we’re going to have a lot of confusion on our hands.”

Luckily our bike course was only 55.7 so we could brand based on the total distance (70.0 and 30.0, conveniently making 100.0 for those who do both), but if our bike had been 56.0 we’d have been shit out of luck.

As an analogy, can you imagine if a company owned a trademark for the word “marathon”, “26.2”, and “13.1” and started telling all races around the world that you cannot call yourself marathon or 26.2 or 13.1? But you are free to call yourself the “Boston Long Race”. It’s absurd.

One thing I always toyed with was the placement of the word Ironman. For instance Ironman Lake Placid or Ironman Canada most certainly would be attributed to the Ironman brand itself. Whereas Savageman Ironman would most certainly (in my mind at least) refer to a distance. Savageman being the owner, and Ironman being the distance.

You are wrong on a number of counts.

First, WTC does not have a trademark on Ironman, Marvel Comics does. Marvel has licensed it to WTC.
Second, a trademark can be ruled invalid if it is a common-use term for which there is no commonly accepted alternative.

The world will never know if WTC’s enforcement of the trademark would have held up in court. At least one trademark attorney was very confident it would not.

OK, I may been incorrect about who owns the trademark but it is still a registered trademark that they are licensed to use. I have a lot of experience in this area and have had several IP lawyers represent me with trademark issues. There are several acceptable alternatives, including full-distance triathlon…ultra-distance, whatever. The time to challenge a mark is before it has been granted.

Added: Either way, challenging that mark in court would be a multi-year process costing at least $150K in legal fees and any ethical IP attorney would tell them that it was a tough case.

Part of the problem in our sport is we are hung up on distance, taking from the running world, when in reality, we need to take from the cycling world and just go with whatever distance the local topography offers and then work with whatever elevation is useable. Because WTC is hung up on distance, it has to dumb down courses.

bingo! people have these numbers in their heads, and it results in shoehorning “ironman” experiences into places where they don’t fit. i think the ‘alternatives to ironman’ are doing it wrong because they’re trying to *be *ironman. offer up some more interesting long-course races that are tailored to their home environments, whatever the distance or format, and you’ll make tri an adventure again. *that *is the true spirit of ironman, not some list of distances.

-mike

I tend to agree with your analysis. At one point at least Ironman was a generic term, as opposed to a specific product term. I’m not sure at point too much water is under that bridge. It would be interesting for someone to do a timeline of all of the public filings, challenges, and attempts to enforce along with all of the variations that at one time existed.