Can it simply be that Kona gave an inch, and IM/triathlon took a mile from the Kona people? IE “triathletes being triathletes”. What do we always hear about at Lake Placid and Kona of weeks of “triathletes taking over” and being basic inconsiderate assholes.
That vibe is gone, and it aint coming back. Hell we aren’t even happy with just 1 day in Kona, we have to figure out a way to make it 2 days, etc. So it’s completely a transactional business affair now.
And I actually don’t really know if that is wrong. Kona can always be triathlon’s spirit animal, but I think the sport can evolve to not being “dependent” on it and still be super successful.
There’s an oft quoted stat that says that more people tune in to the Tour to watch the scenery than they do the bike race. As a similar sport, we can learn a lot from this and apply it to our own broadcasts.
For example, most of the tri broadcast is down at the level of the athlete - right beside them, etc. and focused on splits/timing, etc. and that’s cool, but when’s the last time we had a wine segment or a pause to talk about such and such castle. I get that there’s none of that in Kona, but Nice is easily doable - as are sweeping helicopter shots of the ocean or Mauna Kea.
The one plus that the Tour has is that it moves around, and so each year you get different wines to feature and different chateaux to highlight. For our own debate in this thread - that would seem to suggest that a rotating WC would be a big bonus when it comes to TV production - assuming you can pull it off. Take the time during a lull in the action and highlight the local scenery, history, and culture.
Nailed it. TdF is a viewing experience, the goal is to get people to watch the race, maybe get them to go to France too, but viewing the big goal. IM Kona broadcast comes across as a commercial trying to get you to do an IRONMAN event.
I once spectated a giro d’Italia stage and It felt like a big party in the town. Lots of people walking, cheering, street food trucks. People adorn their houses with pink decorations and signs that they welcome the giro.
I can only assume tdf is similar if not a bigger thing from what I see on TV.
Also, one of the perks of hosting a giro d’Italia stage Is that they resurface the roads. So all the locals get a real improvement they can see and touch compensating hours of closed roads. Just imagine if IM could pull that off.
The other thing this reminded me of is the “jeux sans frontieres”. For the non Europeans, JSF was a televised game where different teams competed on a number of challenges (think squid game without the blood). The teams were selected from different towns across Europe, each team representing their nation.
The closest thing that still exist is Eurovision but it’s purely a song contest.
In both cases, the hosting town/nation and the participants town/nations are presented with a clip introducing the town/nation. Each receiving equal amounts of time.
I wonder what IM has learnt from the 2day debacle and what they’re doing about it. From the outside it seems not much but there’s plenty of ideas and things to get inspiration from.
That’s a really good idea. Would be awesome for everyone if IM could pull that off with the state planning projects at all of their races.
But in the USA here’s how I imagine that would go over…
“Why are we spending public money to resurface just this one road for the Ironman when we have so many other roads that need resurfacing!”
I know all the host cities (start/finish) of the GT’s pay huge fees to the Giro/Tour and they generally rotate a bunch so that they aren’t incurring that fee all that often. I know in ITU to play host to WTCS level it’s ~$1mi paid to WT (not accounting for any local fees). We are sorta seeing how they are struggling to get some of the standard race locations on the calendar anymore (USAT has basically said hell to the no to ever hosting WTCS level races again cus they struggle to cover the costs…they lost their ass with Chicago and San Diego).
I wonder if Kona has simply said “it’s not personal, it’s strictly business” most especially as IM has completely evolved over the years. 40 yers ago IM was about the adventure and the commardie of the athletes + locations. Now it’s basically an complete business transaction between city and race. IM basically needs 2 days to work in a short time frame to make the most money, yet that puts the most pressure on the island itself, even if you do it on the least affected days. It’s still basically a major disruption because of the small island dynamics.
So in that instance if we are are relating it to a Tour or Giro host city dynamic, 1 day really is about all you can really hope for imo. The Tour isn’t banking on the same cities hosting year after year after year (I’m sure a few cities host way more often than others, but it’s basically different cities each year). IE Kona may be in the drivers seat to demanding more than “resurfaced roads” type of bargaining leverage. Especially as now they basically know IM “needs” a 2 day race event (in a tight window to save costs / make the most $$$).
The biggest issue I see with Kona going to a 1 day setup is that it’s basically going “backwards” in many ways. But Kona 2 days just seems like such a big ask on the local communities almost the opposite of creating “excitement” and even more dread on the locals…sorta the opposite of how towns get pumped to host GT stages.
I wish they could pull that off for IM Wisconsin. The terrace and college next to the lake(s) make for a fantastic swim/run venue with the largest and loudest crowds in the USA. But the roads absolutely SUCK! Repave those roads and you have a WC location in the mainland.
They could if they wanted too. $$$ always talks. If IM paid the city a bunch of money to resurface the roads it uses on races. It would get done. Same reason why Giro race route roads get resurfaced. Money always talk. It’s just that comparing what happens at a Giro/Tour vs an IM experience is probaly a really bad comparison.
Somehow in the cycling world, it works the other way. ASO and RCS pay nothing and even are able to command handsome sums from communities for the privilege of touching the race, and THEN the communities have the added obligation to doll up the roads and towns at their own expense…kinda like an IM participant.
Right the cities WANT to host and they want to showcase putting the best athletes in the world in THEIR community. Which is why it’s sorta a poor comparison to compare Giro/Tour circumstances to IM.
Back when MJ did his return tour to the NBA. HIs best friend from college was the head coach at a small time D1 school (UNC Wilmington). MJ said “I want to have our nba team do training camp at your facility”. Guess what happened? Unc Wilmgton and the town suddenly raised a bunch of money to improve the facilites (MJ also “invested” in the facility as well). MJ took his team to that same facility for like 15 years straight even when he became part owner of another franchise.
However, Kona the town has seemingly lost the “passion” for hosting the WC’s. It’s no longer “magical”. It’s again basically turning into complete business transactions. But again they’ve had to play host now for 40 years. There is zero excitement for it, etc. There’s no red carpet like can happen when you only host the best cyclists in the world every 6 years, etc.
And so when it’s that, you are then basically stuck asking “who’s paying for this” vs opening up the checkbook without worrying about it.
That’s imo the situation IM is currently in with so many communities. Communities can get behind hosting the Yankees or Lakers or the top athletes in the world. When it’s just another event, there isn’t always that excitement to buy in. To me the 2 day Kona experience basically showed IM’s “true colors” to the Kona locals, that it’s just now “business first”. They didn’t get a pretty new paved road, they simply got a bunch of headaches and then the same race organization was bragging that this now 2day model was here to say, even before it basically happened.
So while the Giro + cities have a “beneficial” relationship, even if the cities are the ones paying for everything, those cities see massive benefits. They WANT to pay for all of that. It’s the exact opposite scenario within IM events. Instead of it being a given that in order to host a bike race the city is footing all the bill, with IM events, it’s now “who’s paying for this”. And in that instance, your basically always starting with “bad blood”. There is zero bad blood for bike races in Europe for Grand Tours, but again they are only hosting every few years, etc. The host cities aren’t being “fleeced” by the Giro or Tour every year, which is basically now the relationship with IM/Kona. Guess what would happen if the same cities hosted every year in the Giro or Tour? There would suddenly get some “anger” among the locals and questions of “why are we paying for ALL of this”.
So the comparison is sorta a poor comparison when you want to talk about realities.
Apperently there isn’t even an “official” bidding process/price to be a host city for the GT’s (there is for say ITU with specific costs, etc). It’s more of an individual city negoiation and the actual price can vary from city to city. But again there’s a reason why the race and host cities are always changing. There is enough cities who want to pay for “everything” every few years for the best athletes in the world to come to your city (along with tourism from said race hosting date). In that aspect Kona and IM have basically maxed out each other’s good will and excitement. But again that happens when you’ve hit year 40 of a continous relationship.
If anything we can take from the Giro/Tour examples, it’s that within “excitement” and buy in from the locals, “rotating” your race is the answer.
It’s a “business” for IM so I understand they struggle with completeing getting away from Kona. But I truly wonder what would happen in a 4 year rotation with Kona only a WC every 3-4 years (regular IM event other years to “hold” the locaiton spot + cater to all the legacy athletes). I think if they got the locations right adding in some “easy” fun locations in addition to a Nice style, it would work. In addition you’d likely have the Giro pathway. St G or Gold Coast or Hamburg would be willing to pay a “premium” every 4-8 years, they just aren’t going to pay a premium every single year.
This is going to sound negative, but sometimes we need a tiny little bitchy reality check. Ironman doesn’t want a mainstream audience. So whatever solution we’re so busy trying to find, they don’t give a damn about
Tangential to the subject: I’m just watching a local basketball league match on television in a “local country” in Europe. There’s no real money here, for basketball standards. And yet the commentators are encyclopaedias of European basketball, and they’re passionate, engaging, with a sense of humor, just good at their jobs. They can’t be getting paid a lot. But the league and the TV station give a shit for making this a watchable event. So before we blame triathlon for being boring (which it is), let’s blame Ironman for fielding terrible commentating teams largely composed of people who don’t really follow the sport or care to talk about the athletes, and when they do (somewhat), are forbidden to talk about non-IM events, which are… most of professional triathlon.
So who cares if there is a way to make IM WC an event good for TV? They’re not trying, so they won’t apply any of our “advice”, or anybody else’s.
What is IM’s goal? They certainly aren’t banking their business model on a broadcast product like PTO is. So in that instance if you want to say they “don’t care”…ok, but they are first and will always be a race production company 100x over a race broadcast team. Now with that said, I still think they bring in very “passionate” people to do the broadcasts, I just think that having to do it over an “boring” 8-10 hours is the entire issue. Which to I believe Tim’s point about do it like cycling. Cycling will spend an entire segment showing zero cycling but we are all captivated to learn about some 1682 castle or the Forest of Arrenburg (sp) where 1 million people died in 2 world wars, etc. Cycling has some “good commentary” and some bad ones, especially over the last 20 years when they actually now have more than just 1 broadcast feed. Obviously that means people are buying into the product and getting revenue from broadcasts. I don’t know how much IM gets, but I’m guessing it’s nothing like PTO has put into their product, but again IM isn’t a race broadcast product, it’s an race production that adds to it’s race day by including race broadcasts. We could certainly go back to the “ticker” only or waiting 3 months to see the “broadcast” of the race? Which would suck more for the sport? The current “they don’t care” about the broadcast or REALLY them not caring about the broadcast by not actually broadcasting the race?
I think you way underestimate just how hard a “boring” 8 hours of racing is within commentary and then add in that they aren’t even doing it live and in front of them vs what happens in basketball/soccer/baseball/insert your “stadium” team/ball sport commentary. Even the most passionate trihards would be clowned by us as being repeative, missing key race moves, etc. mis-identifying people, etc. Can they get people and do a better job? I’m sure they could. But it’s still the biggest issue to overcome- they have to add commentary for 8+ fucking hours on a “boring” sport. Even if they added the cycling themed breaks for nature and history of the locations, your still going to get repetiveness, your still going to get people being mis-identifyed, your still going to miss the “battles” that are happening off screen for 3rd place while the leader is running solo 3 mins ahead and still on screen. You’ll never nail a broadcast of a sport that doesn’t happen in front of you in a neat confined space.
I’m in the college athletics realm now for my full time job. I’ve been at D3 where sports offer no scholarships, and all their sports are broadcast on basically a camera only feed. I’m now at a D1 sport where all the on campus sports are broadcast with full production producers and announcers. You’d say the D3 teams “don’t care” but in fact they just dont have the budget nor ability to do anything better than current setup. That to me is IM. It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that they aren’t going to invest in the broadcast product because it’s not going to improve their bottom line within IM’s parameters of they are a race production company 1st and foremost. They aren’t a broadcast company trying to make IM work like PTO is basically and can afford to put millions into the broadcast.
Your three main points are about the event duration, low budget (the broadcast product not being a priority) and the difficulty of commentating without seeing all the action live.
To the time and budget I say: Taupo. Seven commentators and interviewers, 3 hours. It was their second most important event of the year, Ironman paid to have a small army there and demonstrated they didn’t care about the quality of commentary, period. People screw up and that’s fine, it just that they designed it to be bad, or didn’t even try to make it good. It was like they were trying to please the commentating team and not the audience. Never mind the AI generated narrative on the screen that they’ve been using long enough for IM management to know it’s a waste of space. So why expect them to beef up IM WC in terms of the broadcast?
To the “non-live” nature I say: Supertri. Yes, their format and their courses make things easier but still the commentators see live action for maybe 2% of the event duration. And the commentary is excellent.
My main point is that non-draft triathlon has basically zero chance of making it work within broadcast parameters. There will always be a missed key move, or. a mis-identify of an athlete when you have 50 different athletes all wearing 50 different kits, etc. PTO spends basically a blank check, and they have great broadcasts, yet no one tunes into the races. Just look at the numbers, no one cares about boring ass 3+ hour non-draft races.
So if your IM, your basically going to do the bare minimum to have a broadcast and then you are going to check off that box. Your not going to waste $1 more dollar than needed to when the broadcast is simply not going to be a game changer for you. It’s why they had to have a broadcast partner in Outside or else there was going to be very little chance you’d see what all the events you saw them broadcast this year. And so what do you know, they treated it just like a tv show with hard outs, irrregardless of what was actually happening during the race. If it was time to cut to commercial, they damn well were going to cut to commercial.
So for me no one gives a shit about long course triathlon beyond us trihards. So if that’s the case why waste money and resources when your a company that likely doesn’t have the money or resources to waste on that product?
In regrds to SLT. There is a reason why SLT is raced on basically a 4 block city streets and looped courses where they always race in front of the fans every 3-4 mins. That’s the only format that will EVER have a chance to make it work for a broadcast partner. They certianly race more than just 2% “live” in front of the commentary, SLT is much closer to the cute 100 yard pitch / court setup than non-draft will ever be. So the commentators can “feel” the race every few mins, they can see the athletes just like the commentators can when they talk basketball and they see the sweat and tears from the players and talk that up on the broadcast, etc. It’s very much a “live” broadcast, much more than your willing to admit.
So to me it’s far more that non-draft LC racing is “boring” than it is IM just doesn’t car. This truly is lipstick on a pig, regardless of the quality of broadcast. IM and PTO basically are proving that out right before our eyes.
