I often wonder whether Cannondale being the “Official Ironman Bike” helps drive sales. Or for that matter, the wetsuits. Both products stand on their own merits. What’s your take?
I think that athletes competing in the actual Ironmans are savvy(sp?) enough to know that a logo doesn’t make them any faster.
It probably helps though.
Not only does it not influence me, I’ve seen WTC’s branding strategy as a joke of sorts. The number of products I see in my local Sportsmart that has the Ironman name now is ridiculous. I’ve seen VERY low end bikes, walkmans, you name it.
For my money (especially as much as we spend for a good bike), I need a product that works for me personally. Bikes and wetsuits are very personal in the way of fit and function.
I think it does drive sales among the neophyte and novice triathlete set. “Ironman” is a known and recognized commodity to every one, not just those immersed in the sport. As a person becomes more knowledgable and experienced, it becomes less of an issue. For some (a significant minority), such ‘branding’ may even dissuade them from buying the product.
I wonder how you determine which perspective is “more”?
Tom,
Personally, it has no effect on me. However, for a small group of newer triathletes and perhaps a larger group of people outside the sport, I think that it may work.
Let’s face it - the WTC hit a huge homerun with Timex and the Ironman line of watchs a long time ago. Back then who would have thought that deal would ever work. However, it turned into one of the most successful sports marketing deals of all time. Perhaps they keep trying weird and wonderful marketing/merchandizing deals in an attemp to hit another Timex Iroman grand slam.
Fleck
A logo means nothing to me since I know all it usually takes is a big enough check to get it on your product.
On the other hand, what experienced athletes actually use has a big influence on my buying decisions. I figure if someone who presumably knows what they are doing is using something it is worth a look.
Since pros and logos can be bought, I always though a clever advertising campaign would be “x% of the top amatuers use our product. We don’t buy athletes, they buy us.”
The IM brand didn’t convince me to buy my longjohn wetsuit, the $135 closeout on 2003 models did (Shameless plug, if you’re in the DC area, this was at Bonzai in N. Virginia, they’re great).
Dunno. This probably changes with each person. Leave it to the retail geniuses (like you!) to figure out!
Have you read ‘Raising the Bar’ by Clif Bar founder Gary Erickson? It’s an interesting look at the business practices used to run Clif Bar. This seems to be a company that has figured out how to answer your question.
I think “Official bike/wetsuit/etc of Slowtwitch” would have more pull. 
Seriously though, much like a few others have said, I really think the impact of the Ironman brand decreases greatly once a person has actually completed a triathlon or two. It probably works best for people with no intention of ever getting off the couch, such as with the Timex watches. Because of this, perhaps the official soft drink of Ironman, deodorant of Ironman, luggage of Ironman etc would have more impact that bike, wetsuit, etc.
IM branded coffee - if the WTC hooked up with Starbucks, they could have a winner. (sales wise - I really dislike Starbucks coffee)
Yes it does have an effect but the revese effect from its intent. I would rather not be seen with all the IM logos everywhere. I call it the Reverse Snobbery syndrome! However I have been know to support sponspors: I drive a Subaru!
Kinda off the point, but how many of you wear your Slowtwitch shorts/top at races? I do only local SF Bay short ones and have only seen one person wearing their Slowtwitch kit. How come?
Reverse affect for me too, I think it’s a shame Cannondale has the M-dot on their bikes, I wouldn’t buy one because of it.
I think that the last time we discussed this, there was some heated debate over some folks’ opinions, and, of course, the whole ‘poser’ thing came up (as if we haven’t been beating that long dead horse enough lately.)
To my mind, all the Ironman logo tells me is that some company paid a lot of money to be declared the official item of Ironman. Whether it is a stroller, or a wristwatch, or a wetsuit, or a bike, both Ironman and the company who pays for the endorsement are doing so because they think that it will draw people to the product. That’s the point, right?
But what ends up happening is that while a lot of people may be drawn to the logo, as is the case with the Ironman watch(but do people buy it because it is a good watch, or do people buy it because it is the Ironman watch?) a lot of people, like myself, will go to great lengths to avoid such a logo-infested product.
Why? Because I want the best product that I can get for the least amount of money. That usually means buying the non-branded or lesser known brands. Will I buy an Ironman wetsuit? Yes, and I did because it was the best fit. But do I think I got the same value buying a Chinese-made suit at the same price as the QR(which just didn’t fit right)? Not at all. A certain amount of the money I paid for the Ironman branded suit went to pay for the fancy logo, which I would rather not have there. If you want to argue that Ironman Wetsuits doesn’t have much greater margin than QR, you had better show me production cost numbers, otherwise, I’m not buying it.
Before you go attacking me, let me just say: This is my opinion. You, of course can do what you want. I come from a long line of curmudgeons who just don’t see the point in paying $100 for Nikes when I can get equal or better sneakers for $40 For that matter, I won’t pay a lot of money to hawk anybody’s product. If the decals come off, I take them off. If they don’t, well, I don’t really worry about it, even though it may annoy me. This is one of my personal piccadellos.
The way I see it, I am me. A guy who does things, and uses products. My actions stand on their own, and I do not use products to let people know who I am. I am not an “Ironman” kind of guy, or a “Nike” kind of guy. I’m just me. If I really like a product, such as my Lemond bike, my VW Jetta, or the vast quantity of Performance product that I own, believe me, you’ll know about it. But I refuse to pay a lot of money for a product because it has a particular logo on it. To me, that’s just lame. (and that’s where we get into the whole branded/trendy/poser/cool thing.)
Fonzie was cool. The leather jacket was a part of that. But it never mattered what brand of leather jacket it was. By contrast, the characters you see today are all about the brands. It’s not what you do, it’s who you wear. If you disagree, then why are there dozens of books on branding, and hundreds of millions spent on developing brand image?
In conclusion, I think that the logo does drive sales, but I don’t think it indicates a better product.
i don’t consider myself a neophyte despite the lack of an IM finish (or start), but these are my thoughts …
what influences me to buy a bike is what i think would be “cool” and “fast,” that is, looks and perceived performance define my wants when it comes to equipment. it really does not influence me to buy a bike due to it’s being the “official” anything.
further, my personal aesthetic for racing gear tends towards liking the labels and insignias. this goes for the “syntace” on my c2’s the “profile” on my base bar, the sella italia on my seat, etc. actually, i wish i had nice wheels that had zipp or hed on them. that being said, i like that little IM guy and generally would certainly not be disappointed were it afixed to equipment that i purchase … except my bike. heres the thing, i DO ride a cannondale ms (without the im logo), were it to have the logo, i would feel like a dumbass having not done an IM, and i would cringe everytime someone would inquire as to whether my “ironman” bike belongs to an actual ironman.
soooo … bottom line is, it would not be the deciding factor as to whether or not i would buy a bike with the IM logo, it would be a negative influence on my purchase decision until i finish an IM … then it would be a “yeah, whatever,” as i tried to get a couple hundred knocked off the price.
I think it can help. More interesting to me is athletes endorsing a product. Setting aside the fact that an athlete might not really use a product, how much influence does this really have? I suspect that GURU staged a coop when Whitfield won the Oly. And I could see the value in Trek having someone win hawaii. But for the most part does a sponsership really help. Here’s a project for someone. Look ath the winner for the past IMH, both mens and womens. The next year does the winners bike sponser increase in representation at IMH , decrease, or doesn’t it seem to correlate?
Styrrell
For me, the Ironman imprimatur has not influenced my choice of a specific product ever since my mother picked up a really cheap Ironman walkman at the dollar store.
Having said that… Years ago I found an Ironman Timex watch while swimming in a lake outside of Vancouver. That thing stared back at my overweight, hard-smoking, hard-drinking self for years until I started making some healthier choices. So props to the M-dot brand for nagging me into this sport. I have a feeling that others have had a similar kind of experience, the brand reminds them that triathlon is something they might want to get into.
Also, when I am at a bike shop, running store, or swim shop - the M-dot brand will clue me in that this store knows that we’re out there and is at least making a cursory effort to garner my interest.
I reckon what people buy tends to do be heavily influenced by what is available to them, but advertising and marketing is huge factor never to be underestimated. Take Trek, they have Lance and Postal but they also have a huge distribution network that can feed off the marketing.
The reverse is true of GURU, when SimonW won GURU did not have enough distribution to really cash in, I think they have lost the window of opportunity. Same goes for Specialised in my local market place where there are a lot of triathletes. After Reid (and to some extent Bowden when she was riding for them the first time) Specialised did not have good distribution or marketing so even though I live in the same province as Reid and Bowden (they get some publicity amidst hockey) there was almost no marketing of that win and there were virtually no Specialised bikes to buy.
On the otherhand you lose count of the number of Trek 5500/2200s with Profile aerostryke bars. The result of Good marketing and good distribution combined.
Well, I forgot my sunglasses on my way to hike Half Dome one year. I went by KMart to pick up a cheap pair for the day. I did not want to pay more than $15, but among the choices was a MDot pair of sunglasses. Got them instead of the other choices.
However, I recognize the MDot products are more of a marketing strategy than anything else. I definitely don’t choose a product based on logos (except for the sunglass incident), but careful research and product reviews.
I am definitely a Cannondale enthusiast, 2 Mountain Bikes and 2 Road bikes, but have steered away from anything with the Official IM tags. Even though I have completed one IM, I think it’s “poserish” 
Chris
I’m in the camp that would probably be less likely to buy. To me, it’s more of a cheesy marketing gimmick. Anyone but a total neophyte who hasn’t done any research on triathlons is going to know that the logo doesn’t say anything about the quality of the product. Anyone that might buy it for the poser factor would probably have also learned that it’s not going to win them any points with other triathletes.
Of course, that all being said, I did buy a Cannondale triathlon frame off eBay. But the one I got was the Saeco team edition with no Ironman logos and it was because of the price and reviews of people like you, Tom, and not because C’dale has a marketing deal with WTC.