Invariably the argument comes up in threads related to wearing Ironman clothes or getting an M-Dot tattoo that Ironman is just another brand like Ford, Proctor and Gamble, Nike, etc. However, this is simply not true. The famous french artist Magritte once painted a picture of a pipe (the kind you use to smoke) and titled it The Treachery of Images. Below the pipe was the phrase, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” which translates to “this is not a pipe.” His implication was that images have no inherent meaning. In other words, a picture only gives meaning to the viewer through the viewer’s preconceived perceptions and knowledge. As it happens, we fortunately share similar notions when it comes to images and words, otherwise we’d have a tough time communicating. This shared knowledge comes from our social, historical and cultural background and education.
So, back to the M-Dot. In the triathlon community I think we can agree that it is recognized as a level of achievement within the sport; that it represents a completion of the Ironman distance. When we see a car with an M-Dot sticker in the window, most of us would assume that person has completed an Ironman. Same with a tattoo. How does this differ from a corporate logo such as the Nike swoosh? Those symbols, like any other, only mean what we bring to them. For me, Nike means running shoes. For others, it might be a sports figure such as Michael Jordan. Ford might bring to mind a tough truck, a crappy Pinto or a cool Mustang. We might wear a favorite sport’s team jersey but I doubt we’ll be mistaken for having actually played on the team. Rather we’re seen as a fan. For this type of symbolism we tend to think in terms of products, attributes or identity; not in terms of accomplishments. True, the Ironman brand has become somewhat diluted thanks to it’s being slapped on everything from baby joggers to bed mattresses. I do not believe, however, that it has gotten to the point to where it has lost it’s original, commonly shared meaning; at least among triathletes. Will that day come? Who knows? But for now I will continue to see the M-Dot and words Ironman as symbol of human achievement, not simply as another corporate brand.
Concur. The M-dot is a near generic that connotes (to most) finishing the distance. It does not connote WTC or whoever the future owners are. That’s why folks who have completed an iron distance race, but not a WTC race, still get M-dot tattoo’s, put an M-dot sticker on their cars and tell their friends they did an ironman. Although WTC is fighting to legally protect their trademark, the symbol has already crossed the generic threshold in the minds of MOST triathletes.
While I understand your sentiment…WTC’s lawyers, the registered trademarked logo, and the many events who been sued by Ironman would strongly disagree with you.
Really, to the “casual observer” - ALL triathlons have become “Ironmans”.
It just is what it is. Its what happens when you are the only “big fish in the pond” sort of speak. Triathlons are Ironmans, just like all MMA fights are “UFC fights”, etc etc etc.
Concur. The M-dot is a near generic that connotes (to most) finishing the distance. It does not connote WTC or whoever the future owners are. That’s why folks who have completed an iron distance race, but not a WTC race, still get M-dot tattoo’s, put an M-dot sticker on their cars and tell their friends they did an ironman. Although WTC is fighting to legally protect their trademark, the symbol has already crossed the generic threshold in the minds of MOST triathletes.
It would be interesting to see a cancellation claim (or counterclaim more likely) against WTC premised on the argument that “Ironman” is generic and has lost all secondary meaning. In my day job, I’ve done some “likelihood of confusion” stuff, but never anything involving a “generic mark” argument. I guess it’s too late waiver-wise for Marvel Comics to come up with a likelihood of confusion claim. It’s hard to swim in the metal Ironman costume anyway and it’s not terribly aero.
I hear what you are saying and it’s a good addition to the discussion on Ironman, the brand. I would suggest that it depends highly on the group. Here, on ST or in any place lousy with venerable, accomplished, deeply rooted triathletes IM has a bitterness attached. That is because, I would argue, it was once a distance that has become a corporate logo. If the discussion of ironman were struck up in lane 5 of the most popular bowling alley in Lavonia, Michigan or at the counter of a diner in Ogalalla, Nebraska then it’s going to be very likely used synonymously with triathlon.
Of course, completion of an IM is good stuff - so displaying that IM logo is in fact a symbol that you did accomplish that long, arduous feat. Props.
At the same time, I’ve definitely noticed that both with myself and other people much faster than myself, the more experienced and the faster you get at racing, the less these logos matter to you. I’ve ridden with several triclubs in Norcal and Socal with numerous members, and I hate to say it, but it’s true that you can say that in GENERAL (not always, but in general), those that show up proudly displaying matching IM-branded clothing and bikes or other multiple pieces of IM-branded gear, aren’t going to be particularly speedy. (I’m going to get flamed for this yes, but that’s just what I’ve noticed.) The fastest guys/gals in these clubs don’t tend to display the IM logo.
Reminds me of my first ‘real’ marathon where I really trained my butt of for it. (Like 80+mpw). I was so proud of doing the hard training and long hours, such that I even wrote ‘26.2’ on the back of my sneakers just to advertise that I was training for this long race. Now that I’ve run 7 more of them, I’m really embarrassed about that move, even though there’s nothing wrong with it.
I admit I haven’t done an IM-branded IM yet, but I also don’t put any additional cred into doing one. Times and performance against the field count - branding is for the experience, but doesn’t reflect how good an athlete you are to me. (In fact, the more IM logos, the less I think you’ll smoke me, as said above - flamesuit on!)
People here on ST are forgetting to put the 70.3 in front of their Ironman race name when they talk about their half irons these days.If triathletes are no longer worried about the difference how are folks with nothing to do with the sport supposed to tell who was done before lunch and who wasn’t?
The Ironman brand these days means a race that may or may not be an Iron distance triathlon…
I hear what you are saying and it’s a good addition to the discussion on Ironman, the brand. I would suggest that it depends highly on the group. Here, on ST or in any place lousy with venerable, accomplished, deeply rooted triathletes IM has a bitterness attached. That is because, I would argue, it was once a distance that has become a corporate logo. If the discussion of ironman were struck up in lane 5 of the most popular bowling alley in Lavonia, Michigan or at the counter of a diner in Ogalalla, Nebraska then it’s going to be very likely used synonymously with triathlon.
That’s exactly my point Ian. The M-Dot symbol and name Ironman have absolutely no intrinsic meaning, only what we bring to them. As a group of triathletes, we tend to apply similar meanings to the brand, although as you mention, not entirely the same even within the tri community. You’re right, outside the triathlon, or even athletic community, it likely has very little meaning. But I think we can agree that, despite it being a corporate “brand” many of us do not see it in the same way we look at other corporate brands.
Concur. The M-dot is a near generic that connotes (to most) finishing the distance. It does not connote WTC or whoever the future owners are. That’s why folks who have completed an iron distance race, but not a WTC race, still get M-dot tattoo’s, put an M-dot sticker on their cars and tell their friends they did an ironman. Although WTC is fighting to legally protect their trademark, the symbol has already crossed the generic threshold in the minds of MOST triathletes.
It would be interesting to see a cancellation claim (or counterclaim more likely) against WTC premised on the argument that “Ironman” is generic and has lost all secondary meaning. In my day job, I’ve done some “likelihood of confusion” stuff, but never anything involving a “generic mark” argument. I guess it’s too late waiver-wise for Marvel Comics to come up with a likelihood of confusion claim. It’s hard to swim in the metal Ironman costume anyway and it’s not terribly aero.
Concur. To my knowledge no one has contested the mark. A former girlfriend was a trademark attorney and was of the opinion that WTC would lose in court on the Ironman trademark because there is no other accepted and common-use alternative to describe the 1.2/112/26.2 distance. “Full”. “Long Course”. Neither of those suffice. 140.6 is similarly trademarked. But, I don’t think any indie race has yet had the money and cajones to contest in court the validity of the mark when presented with a cease-and-desist for using a derivation of Ironman (cease-and-desists come from WTC with any use of “iron” as this alludes to the trademarked ironman).
The Ironman brand these days means a race that may or may not be an Iron distance triathlon…
Good point, and I suspect that’s why WTC changed the name from Half Ironman to Ironman 70.3; to better protect their trademark. I think it’s part of the brand dilution and, as I mentioned, there may come a time when most triathletes no longer equate them with the full Ironman distance. In which case, I wonder if something will come along to take its place. Perhaps it will be the more generic 140.6.
Concur. The M-dot is a near generic that connotes (to most) finishing the distance. It does not connote WTC or whoever the future owners are. That’s why folks who have completed an iron distance race, but not a WTC race, still get M-dot tattoo’s, put an M-dot sticker on their cars and tell their friends they did an ironman. Although WTC is fighting to legally protect their trademark, the symbol has already crossed the generic threshold in the minds of MOST triathletes.
It would be interesting to see a cancellation claim (or counterclaim more likely) against WTC premised on the argument that “Ironman” is generic and has lost all secondary meaning. In my day job, I’ve done some “likelihood of confusion” stuff, but never anything involving a “generic mark” argument. I guess it’s too late waiver-wise for Marvel Comics to come up with a likelihood of confusion claim. It’s hard to swim in the metal Ironman costume anyway and it’s not terribly aero.
Concur. To my knowledge no one has contested the mark. A former girlfriend was a trademark attorney and was of the opinion that WTC would lose in court on the Ironman trademark because there is no other accepted and common-use alternative to describe the 1.2/112/26.2 distance. “Full”. “Long Course”. Neither of those suffice. 140.6 is similarly trademarked. But, I don’t think any indie race has yet had the money and cajones to contest in court the validity of the mark when presented with a cease-and-desist for using a derivation of Ironman (cease-and-desists come from WTC with any use of “iron” as this alludes to the trademarked ironman).
Way back in the day WTC tried to get the Australian Surf Lifesaving Association to drop the term Ironman from its events.They were told to fuck off!!
More recently WTC tried to get Steve Kirby from www.USAUltratri.com to stop using the term Iron for his double and triple Iron races…Same thing happened!
Personally I would love to see the term “Ironman” become equated with the 140.6 distance in the same way we say Kleenex when we really mean facial tissue.
Personally I would love to see the term “Ironman” become equated with the 140.6 distance in the same way we say Kleenex when we really mean facial tissue.
I think that “unofficialy” it already is, except of course from WTC’s point of view and from the Ironman snobs out there who seem to put more athletic value in M-dot races than other races of the same distance.
*I think that “unofficialy” it already is, except of course from WTC’s point of view and from the Ironman snobs out there who seem to put more athletic value in M-dot races than other races of the same distance. *
Yeah, that was my whole argument to begin with but I got sidetracked thinking about the legal issue.
Personally I would love to see the term “Ironman” become equated with the 140.6 distance in the same way we say Kleenex when we really mean facial tissue.
I think that “unofficialy” it already is, except of course from WTC’s point of view and from the Ironman snobs out there who seem to put more athletic value in M-dot races than other races of the same distance.
It was. Until WTC diversified the use of the term to include 70.3 as well. Which, if anything, has bolstered the validity of the mark as it is less likely to be considered a generic term describing the 1.2/112/26.2 distance with no common-use alternative. I’ve seen many uses of “he has completed x Ironmans” in the mainstream press, when in fact it was a mixture of Ironman and Half-Ironmans.
Can you imagine the for-profit World Running Corporation getting a trademark on “Marathon” and “26.2”, changing the branding of half-marathons to “Marathon 13.1”, and preventing any other organization from using the term marathon or half-marathon, so they have to name their races “Full Run” or “Long Run”? That is how ludicrous this is. But, WTC pulled it off.
To me, Ironman is still the distance whatever the registered trade name and logos are. In todays world that’s the way business works, you register a name because of what it stands for and capitalize on it, so what. A few years back, you did an Ironman branded ironman because no one else really did them ( the distance) in a big way. Now we have more race series including the distance, they may not be able to legally call them " an ironman " but the distance will always be know as a “ironman” much as facial tissues are known as “Kleenex”! To me the “M Dot” still signifies the distance much to the chagrin of the trademark owners and to stop using the term as a distance rather than as a brand just takes it away from its beginnings and lets corporate America corrupt the term to their monetary advantage.
That said I would like to quote Shakespeare for Richard the 3rd. " First we kill all the lawyers"
