Ideas for improving Ironman expos

Triathlon Forum
1

As I near the end of a run of 24 expos in 2025 as a vendor, I have thoughts for what could better. But first, I’ll say that Ironman World Championship expos are the best.

I think most expos in general would benefit from UX research with regard to the layout and design of the expo.

For Ironman, I think the big white tent of Ironman branded merch and partner-only products is shortsighted and misses the picture for what could be. I’d go so far as to suggest that the exclusive partnership program in general deducts from the athlete/customer experience, and even leaves money on the table.

There was one shoe sponsor and three bike sponsors at this IMWC expo. I suggest the athlete experience would be better if there were more of the bigger brands. If done differently, IM could generate revenue from 5+ running shoe/bike partners that exceeds the revenue they receive from a single shoe/bike partner. How they get done with course sponsorship is a separate conversation, and this thread is only with regard to the expo.

I suggest that going from the enclosed and cooled big white merch tent and stepping outdoors into a flea market environment cheapens the expo experience for athletes when they visit the booths of non-partner vendors, as many rush past determined not to make eye contact (I reel them into my booth despite their efforts)

I think there is a solution where Ironman provides bit more control over the entire expo experience to ensure that all booths share a similar theme in terms of construction and design. As a vendor, I would pay more for that.

And what if there were IM check out counters all throughout the expo and products from any booth could be bought at those counters, so that vendor booths no longer have checkout lines, but are only used for product information sharing and engagement. Vendors would provide sku’s and inventory counts to Ironman. Ironman could take a dealer-sized margin ($$$), while no longer charging greater-than-MSRP pricing like they do in their current merch tent, which really deducts from the athlete experience by gouging athletes. This would better create a seamless experience where the entire expo feels unified and congruent for the user. This also lends much greater legitimacy to vendors.

And last, these expos should be places where, across the board for all vendors, new products and technology are being shown and released so that these also become more prominent media events.

3 Likes
2

I know they need to drive foot traffic through the expos but do we really need to go through the expo, then through the IM store, then into the registration tent… and only exit in the reverse?

And then get my participant backpack searched by security as I pass back through the IM store? Really?

As if I paid to register and fly and stay across the world just so I can shoplift the same crap I’ve seen in every other race?

Rude. Know your customers. /rant off

4 Likes
3

Roth expo is obviously famous. Been there a few times. And I was at UTMB last week. Included good food, beers and a chilling area. I grew up going to the London Marathon expo in the 1980s. Biggest change between now and then? Far less decent free stuff. Used to get nice caps, t-shirts, loads of stickers, magazines, posters, samples.

1 Like
4

I agree with your points. Also, after being absolutely bent over paying for your hat and shirt in the IM tent you are less inclined to spend any money in the ‘flea market’. The pain is still fresh in your mind.

What would be good would be if there were expo only discounts. Why am I going to rush to spend full retail in the heat of the moment.

1 Like
5

We did hear so many people tell us that they had already spent over $1000 in the merch tent and could not spend any more money. My little vision above would create a more unified experience, hopefully preventing that premature wallet fatigue.

As for discounts, the merch tent charges over MSRP. Simply bringing everything down to MSRP with no shipping fees or import fees, I think is good enough seeing how expensive it is for vendors to travel around the world snd set up these temporary shops.

6

Yep, but I like a lot of triathletes I’m guessing are a little analytical/detail oriented. If I’m going to buy something in the heat of the moment I need an incentive over and above what I could otherwise get from the comfort of my home.

If anything it would be good to have the expo after the race (I know this won’t work as everyone leaves) but after the race Im relaxed, motivated and ready to spend. Before the race Im a muddle of nervous energy that is really too focused on the race to buying stuff…

2 Likes
7

you should go to Roth, to see what is the best triathlon expo.

Nice expo for the IMWC was a joke. You said 3 bikes brands, but that was the same for the parts (you, tetsuo, profile design, i do not remember other.)
Nothing to eat, no reason to stay there

Even the Ekoi both was way smaller than during T100 french riviera, 2 weeks ago.

2 Likes
8

Just pointing out some issues:

If IM sells the inventory, who holds the risk for stolen or damaged goods?

If IM sells the inventory, who holds the risk for chargebacks, 30,60,90 days out?

Vendors might like to offer pros or dealers or friends discounts/freebies or prizes etc.

Vendors offering last day discounts, combo deals etc.

There’s always going to be some merchandising headaches with barcodes etc as vendors will have random products that aren’t integrated in time properly into their POS.

Personally, as a customer I prefer being able to visit the different booths.

I can see how in some cases it makes perfect sense though.

Has Ironman not given you a price for being the official saddle yet?

1 Like
9

All points addressable and pretty easily so, but a tad too in the trees, imo, and missing the forest.

Still have individual booths.

re: seeking saddle partnership, seeking a partnership would be a bit hypocritical in light of my proposal above :joy:. I’m definitely more of a rising seas lift all ships rather than looking out only for my brand. I can point to the number of companies who have been partners and never ever returned. And one of the biggest partners has just pulled out = evidence of partners perceiving the value they gained. But, that is not to say that other partners haven’t benefited mightily.

@kaillou38 very familiar with Roth… but it’s not nearly as profitable as IM’s expo. just facts. But it is a better UX. I can still imagine better…

@gunna yous peoples (me too) are in line in the merch tent paying way over msrp… that behavior is the evidence need to set pricing. Physically having a product in your hand right then and there is likely all of the heat of the moment emotions needed.

10

Yes but the way it’s handled is shifting ALL compliance costs on to the vendor. On top of the vending fee they’d charge.

Most vendors will look at those numbers as even worse than the current situation.

Here’s how the numbers will look: imagine your best case scenario. Give all the profit to Ironman.

That’s the deal. Best case.

Worst case you lose.

Why? Because any other alternative is not worth their time if it’s not the best case scenario.

I suggest it’s simply easier for IM to lower vendor fees and have a bigger tradeshow. Part of their issue is that IM insists on fencing off the vendor area entirely to force traffic through their tent. At some point, they end up just putting those vendor fees right into the fencing and park space rental with nothing in it for them.

How much does IM need to charge vendors to collect between 50-100k an event off their village fees? If they aren’t getting that, why do they bother? That’s a LOT of work into coordinating that stuff as you know.

1 Like
11

We have 2 different point of view :sweat_smile:

For a bike geek like me, the only interesting both was yours. For the saddle, & Velovetta.
And Roth is something more like disneyland :heart_eyes:

1 Like
12

Cynicism kills innovation.

All of these issues can pretty easily remedied, to the point that I don’t even consider them issues, but just normal every day business.

It is a different model, that doesn’t mean it is impossible. It does require a lot of work upfront to implement innovative ideas, that’s why innovation is not the norm but… innovative. Do the hard thing now.

1 Like
13

Are you saying the vendor would also lose a % margin on sales back to IM because IM now would be the one “selling” the actual product to the customer?

14

I remember the days of Rudy Project looking to juice the helmet count with half off deals at Kona, alas, full MSRP for Wingdream’s at their booth.

But at least I know what size to order for their Black Friday sale.

1 Like
15

In the same way that we manufacturers lose a percentage of margin when we sell through dealers.

The proposed expo plan above would, in theory, drastically increase sales. Quantity of sales would make up for loss in margin, in the same way that dealers increase quantity of sales for manufacturers and make up for the loss of margin.

That loss in margin would be in exchange for the proposed unified experience in the expo so it no longer feels like a flea market, and athletes/customers have a significantly improved overall expo experience

16

I guess as a former vendor that’s seen how tight margins are, I’m not necessarily buying what your selling. But that’s ok. Especially if your IM and the expo fees they require and then they get a % of sales on top of that. So unless your including them make the vendor fees more “affordable” and taking out many of the obligations that vendors can or more important can’t sell, I’m not seeing it the way you see it. But no problem.

3 Likes
17

Nick, that is exactly the point of why the expo is what it is. Why would IM change anything when they can get the bulk of the consumer’s money?

18

I am suggesting that if we put together some financial models, I could potentially demonstrate that this proposed model above would make the vendors more money, and also make Ironman more money, and create a better athlete experience.

It appears that Ironman is doing really well with the current model, but I am suggesting that they are leaving money on the table

It requires sitting down seeing the existing financials, and putting together detailed proposed financials. Not going to do that here, but have just presented the idea and think that if cynicism is to be set aside, a win-win-win could be potentially seen.

19

I think they may be doing well financially from the current model, but I also think it’s killing everything around it with the current expos at most of their events these days. I absolutely think they could improve it, but I also understand most of this is always financial based, and thus if you have a title shoe sponsor, guess what your not going to probaly allow at the expo- another vendor to then potentially sale rival shoes. So there’s a lot to digest from many sides, and generally the thing with IM is that these are basically having to be a one size fits all for basically all of their races. This isn’t a Roth where it’s a 1 time thing, these rules/procedures will basically have to be uniformerly applied over what 150 races around the world at the basic level (and then race per race negoitations for each vendor- that’s what our shop does with IM…we got a “pro rated” vendor deal if we did bike tech on race day for “free”…that’s not standard in their policies).

1 Like
20

I think we’re on the same page: this is an issue of greater stakeholder theory, and it is best to foster the entire ecosystem, and much economic research demonstrates that doing so increases your long-term profit compared to your short-term gains. DeRue being a management researcher and former Dean of Ross knows this