@devashish_paul Did you listen to the podcast? It’s at the very beginning. You can’t simply dismiss the myriad of sources who are also hearing the same issues with the current format. It’s not just me, you make it sound like I pulled this out of the ether. I’ve said repeatedly it’s conjecture but it’s also likely going to be true.
IM had about 1400 women in France. For a regular Ironman that’s an ok number. Since they charge more for the World Championship that helps.
But IM has considerably more costs and staff, branding, broadcasting, prize money, etc. they throw at a WC. I can’t believe IM is happy with that. You might argue about what they lost vs gained in your eyes, but the reality is their target was a race with 2400 women. Not 1400. If your entire season is built around ending with an event that brings in $3 million in sales and it ends up with $1.8million, that’s pretty far off from expectation. You are suggesting that IM can afford to take a $1million hit in event sales and still turn a profit at that individual race. I think you’re reaching quite a bit.
Directed at @devashish_paul sorry hit wrong reply button
1 Like
@Lurker4 Correct. And I was told by someone who works for Ironman that WC event costs are very high relative to other races.
The IMWC shouldn’t be viewed in a vacuum. Part of the equation is also the push/pull that happens when people are trying to qualify for the WC itself.
If I’m a competitive AGer, I have at least one IM event I need to do to qualify, potentially more if you’re on the bubble for the more competitive AGs. Part of event is also the uptick in participation that you get from your feeder events, beyond what you’d get from the feeder event itself.
After all, I could be doing a Challenge or independent IM distance race this year (or none at all), but we’re drawn to the allure that is the WC.
In the case of the Women’s race, part of this is also an investment in the women’s side of the sport as well. If they only had 1200 paying customers, but the event causes 1000 other people to race other events as a result (either current customers racing extra events trying to qualify or new entrants who are inspired), then the race itself can also count these entries on its ledger.
Don’t confuse direct revenue from the event with the success of the event itself.
This is me. I’m on the bubble so I’m working towards legacy. I will only accept Kona, I even turned down a Nice slot at IMAZ this last week bc the value just isn’t there for me.
If it’s moved away from Hawaii I’ll have no reason to only sign up for IRONMAN branded races.
1 Like
I’m afraid you’re using startup, growth math. While you might be able to make the case that IM is trying to grow women, the reality is triathlon is really more in the maturation stage, fighting the decline.
If you were expecting 3 million and you get 2 million, and you adjust the goal posts and say, “that 2 million is really great and it sets the stage for more growth in the future;” then you’re really just adjusting the goal posts after the kick was missed.
It’s something you’d naturally do from a PR perspective but if you were shooting straight you’d say the plan failed and you merely hope it wasn’t all a failure and there’s likely some unaccounted-for good.
But the accounting would still show a loss. If your WC is back to essentially charging your feeder events a portion of their entry fees to compensate for its own failure to attract enough customers it’s a hard stretch to turn around and say those feeder events increased in customer turnout as evidenced by a lower WC turnout.
As it was, IM Cozumel had 200 less males this year in the Nice cycle and only 20 more females in the Kona cycle.
AZ had 150 less males in the Nice cycle and only 10 more females.
So if we take the hard data and tell a story, the story says that Kona increases the turn out, but since the base of females to turnout is small it’s within the margin of error. With the males Kona brings a significant measurable increase since there are more males to draw on.
Or in other words, Nice suppresses their customers base across the board. Not a winning strategy from that perspective. If you want to count alleged female signups at qualifier events as a plus in the Nice column, you also have to count the measurable, substantial decline in the Nice qualifier events.
Maybe that’s enough of a reason for IM to switch gears in 2025. IM is afraid they are about to hemmorage 10-15% of their male racers at all Nice qualifier events in 2025 and are in full panic mode. That’s a fair conclusion to have!
I’d assume 10-15% of entrance fees is equal to their profit margin at their events. That’s a tough pill to swallow.
1 Like
Hey, what I am asking is if Ironman’s overall particiaption is up over all 140.6 races on account of more slots from two championships and if more $$$ flowed to the bottom line. Not if Kona made more money or Nice worlds made more money. My question is if corporation did more revenue over the year and actually over two years.
That alone may not be a sufficient metric to decide what they want to do.
They may not be in “full panic mode” because they may be getting enough interest elsewhere in terms of overall registrations whether athletes are going to Nice or Kona (it may be a different picture if you are doing an Ironman in South Africa versus an Ironman in California
For sure there will be many FOP age groupers who like going to Kona every year who won’t like a rotation out of Kona, there will be industry people who don’t like it, there will be pros who don’t like it and thus people like @Bryancd will talk to their echo chamber who are all not liking things rotatiing out of Kona and they may just be able to chew off the ear of a new CEO and get what they want, which may have not worked on Andrew Messick.
But it could be that all the people who don’t like it are replaced by a higher volume of age groupers who like it, a higher volume of pros who like it, and a higher volume of new industry people who like it (or it could be lower).
However if Kona is in the rotation every two years, the other location will have a tough time gaining legs.
Is there any source that says what you’re saying that gives an indication of where they get the information from? And that we can be reasonably sure that they check the reliability of their sources?
None of the sources I’ve read about, including this podcast, seem to apply the kind of due diligence that a major publisher would apply before saying something like that.
By the way, did you truly listen to the podcast?
They literally start the episode saying that they include “possible fake news about triathlon racing” with “stories dramatised for comedic effect”. And the part that you refer to is titled “rumor mill nonsense”.
Which means they might have just made everything up.
It’s not that just because a podcast or social media channel reports a “rumor” then the rumor is true. Even if there’s a hundred of them if they are all quoting each other or generic “rumor” it’s got no value.
Just because there’s a lot of “rumors” doesn’t mean that it’s anything beyond a widespread game of Chinese whispers mixed with wishful thinking and trying to influence IM’s CEO.
And maybe there is substance but it’s very hard to know what the substance is.
Everybody in this thread is going through confirmation bias (myself included). We don’t really know what IMs internal metrics look like to be able to judge accurately. It’s all speculation.
1 Like
Honest question, are you familiar with who the ProTri News guys are? I have been a regular listener since they launched the show about 3 years ago so I might be much more familiar with not only what their backgrounds are but the nature of the show itself. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that at least Mark and Pat would be considered “insiders” to the triathlon industry and have close personal relationships with the people who are making these decisions. Yes they goof around and make obvious jokes about triathlon, but they don’t straight up lie about serious subjects or simply make it up for fun and clicks. I have not heard them do anything of the sort and I have heard every show. They both have said they 'Know" Nice was a loss and that Ironman is looking at alternatives. Pat has been especially adamant about it and he represents professional athletes besides his wife who race T100 and Ironman. You can question the veracity of that but they aren’t just saying these things to stir the pot. Recently they also were the first to report Lionel was working with Jan and no one on ST believed them. The intro joke of the show was also used to try and discredit them, which is just silly. And yes, sometimes rumors are silly and nonsense and they make fun of those too.
If your position is we shouldn’t give any weight to what they say, that’s fine. If you will only accept a direct announcement form IM, that’s fine. We are having a discussion, hopefully in good faith.
1 Like
I’m not saying they are dishonest or lying on purpose. Still, you can’t be sure of the validity of what they are talking about.
They are the ones who start their episodes with a statement saying that it may contain fake news.
Let’s put this another way, if you were sure that you only reported on accurate things you’ve verified would you start every episode with this sentence?
“possible fake news about triathlon racing” with “stories dramatised for comedic effect”
Firstly, don’t underestimate the psychological and monetary influence of going for the clicks and views. Even if they’re not going to make up stuff they would still talk about the things that people want to hear. Every content producer has to choose what they talk about and what people want is always one of the main drivers.
Checking the accuracy of reporting is a full time job. Presenting rumors and inside knowledge in a way that is accurate and gives a good idea of the source is quite difficult. Some publishers do that all the time. In this podcast they’ve decided that they are not going to do either.
Besides, the way this podcast is presented makes it very difficult to tell what’s an opinion, what’s a reported opinion, what’s a fact.
You’re inferring that if they say they “know” then it must be true. But there’s enough nuance that it could mean anything. They could be inferring themselves, giving their opinion or reporting somebody’s inaccurate comment. Or it could be true.
I’m not saying there’s no substance. There might be. And I’m not saying that the news are substantial only if they came from Ironman.
But you’re presenting as truths and sources things that make no claim of being accurate.
If some of the rumors they report on end up being true and accurate, it doesn’t suddenly mean that everything they say is accurate. But availability bias makes it so that we only remember the things that ended up being true and confirmed our ideas.
they do go on to say that if it offends you to go work out 
I think the gossip and speculation is fine as long as you know it’s just that.
But they are more often right than wrong
2 Likes
- enough nuance that it could mean anything - tick
- could be inferring - tick
- giving their opinion - tick
- reporting somebody’s inaccurate comment - tick
- Or it could be true - tick
@Bryancd wants it to be so, and is quite prepared to be gullible.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia
There is a group of those who want things “the way the were”. Inclusive of industry people and perpetual Kona qualifier and Kona qualifier couples and some pros. There is a new CEO who has barely done a triathlon in his life “listening to his customers”.
Except he’s listening to a biased set.
The previous CEO actually went and saw triathlon racing all around the world and expanded it all across the world in terms of feeder races (he even survived the entire transition with Dalian Wanda and still grew the sport). He is the guy who took 70.3 Worlds outside USA (first to Tremblant then Zelle Am See) both of them massive successes, then back to Chattanooga, Port Elizabeth South Africa, Nice (again, all successful).
In any case the so called “insiders” are pushing for “the way it was”. They have an opening with a new guy and clearly fueling the rumour/fake news converyor belt.
But as you and I have stated, there are no facts that are public YET that this discussion is around. Brian started this entire thread on conjecture about Nice losing money (he presented no stats, but let’s accept that Nice MAY have lost money).
While I am pro rotation of worlds and cutting off Kona (just because the community does not want us anymore, in which case let’s move on, we as a sport are bigger than village in the Pacific), I am more interested in a discussion based on facts and data if we are speaking in the realm of definitives, not leaning on podcasts that open with “this may be fake”
1 Like
Yes because it’s funny.
Let me be clear, it’s a long thread and it’s possible you haven’t read everything I have posted. There are many things I have said that I readily acknowledge are subjective. Is Ironman going to bring the race together in Kona in 2025? Hugely subjective and unlikely. Are there internal discussions to bring the race back together in Kona, subjective. Are they considering a second attempt at two days in Kona, subjective. In an ideal world, they wold have two races in Kona, objective. Nice has not lived up to the level of participant, professional, and stakeholder enthusiasm they were hoping for, I believe that is objective but understand others will disagree. The same with the economics of Nice. So despite what Dev and @Ajax_Bay try and insinuate, I’m not engaged in some crusade. I spend every working day trying to read tea leaves in capital markets, this is no different. I may have my personal bias but no one at Ironman cares what I think.
For someone who keeps insisting on verifiable facts, that is RANK speculation.
Fair point but I’d think you need to take into account more than just two races - obviously Kona might appeal more to NA audiences for which it is more accessible. Does the data show that the same is true for EU or other areas?
It also bears repeating (again) that Nice is a temporary measure. So you’re comparing draw rates of an established brand to a temporary band-aid. Not exactly apples to apples.
There’s risks in both decisions. Kona is known but has its limits and risks - it’s a safe path, but opens IM up to the whims of travel policy and local politics. Rotating the WC is risky because it needs to re-establish its brand identity but arguably comes with a higher upside. They’re different types of risks.
3 Likes
This is an exhausting conversation
4 Likes
Not replying to anyone in particular, but I don’t know what the argument is about here. Even in my close circles of individuals who finish top 5-10 in their AGs at Ironman events in the M30-34 and M35-39 age groups - emphasis that I have no particular draw to Kona and would personally support a different venue - there is a clear difference in Kona vs Nice years. Nice years are “I’m going to focus on 70.3s this year to get faster” and Kona years are Kona and IM focused.
Some of these individuals did the first Nice WC because it was the inaugural event but have no plans to go back. We can’t honestly say the Kona effect isn’t prevalent still?
at the same time on their website ironman nice is back with a date
page 9
the title of this thread should be show your kona bias…