Ironman Brand
92
Member
138 days
Clint-murphy posted 9 weeks ago.
They would have to be careful what they try to brand - Ironman does not have the right to use the term "triathlon" as that right is owned by the ITU (International Triathlon Union).
Therefore, they would have to create an olympic distance event and call it the 35.15 or something (not sure what the distance is in miles) if that make sense.
If they want to use "Triathlon" then they need permssion from ITU
361
Member
499 days
jwillia852 posted 9 weeks ago.
Clint-murphy wrote:
They would have to be careful what they try to brand - Ironman does not have the right to use the term "triathlon" as that right is owned by the ITU (International Triathlon Union).Therefore, they would have to create an olympic distance event and call it the 35.15 or something (not sure what the distance is in miles) if that make sense.
If they want to use "Triathlon" then they need permssion from ITU
I am pretty sure that is very incorrect...Where did you get your information? The WTC (World Triathlon Corporation) owns the "Ironman" and "Ironman Triathlon" Trademarks (along with MDOT, 70.3, 140.6 etc.). Saying that ITU owns a trademark for the word Triathlon is like saying the NFL owns the rights to the word football.
Jeff
640
Member
1025 days
KitKat posted 9 weeks ago.
jwillia852 wrote:
On a pure business standpoint, why doesn't Ironman slap their branding onto Olympic or even select sprint distance races to create a broader Ironman series?I understand protecting the brand and the exclusivity of the big event, but they do brand the 70.3 races which technically aren't Ironman races.
Quote:
Can you clarify this?....I'm not fully understanding what you're asking by "branding", I might be a little slow this morning.
**Pain is weakness leaving the body**
*Smile, it does a body good*
361
Member
499 days
jwillia852 posted 9 weeks ago.
KitKat wrote:
jwillia852 wrote:On a pure business standpoint, why doesn'tIronmanWTC slap their Ironman branding onto Olympic or even select sprint distance races to create a broader Ironman series?I understand protecting the brand and the exclusivity of the big event, but they do brand the 70.3 races which technically aren't Ironman races.
Quote:
Can you clarify this?....I'm not fully understanding what you're asking by "branding", I might be a little slow this morning.We see Ironman 140.6 races and Ironman 70.3 races, I am just curious to why we haven't seen Ironman Branding/Trademarks/Logos tagged all over races at the Olympic and even sprint distance level.
Jeff
2322
Member
1894 days
PrinceofClydes posted 9 weeks ago.
#1. I think it's too late for a corporation to do that with "Olympic" or "International Distance" triathlon.
#2. IM and obviously 70.3s are the invention of specific named promoters, to wit John Collins and later, Valerie Silk. Papers were filed long before there was any competition from other promoters.
#3. Whereas shorter distance races proliferated before there was any over-riding organization who might have laid claim to the name "Triathlon." Thus triathlon is now a generic term to descibe the sport, like "football."
#1 is my considered opinion. #2 is self-evident and checkable. #3 is my answer/ex[lanation without any referential source to quote.
PoC
""Your ass looks fantastic. Are the kids in bed yet???"
- TonisTri. 10/2009
709
Member
522 days
jonovision_man posted 9 weeks ago.
"Brand dilution is the weakening of a brand though its overuse. This frequently happens as a result of ill-judged brand extension."
"A company that owns a strong brand obviously wants to leverage it to sell as much as possible, but the very strategies used to purse this end often also bring the danger of brand dilution."
jono
709
Member
522 days
jonovision_man posted 9 weeks ago.
"Brand dilution is the weakening of a brand though its overuse. This frequently happens as a result of ill-judged brand extension."
"A company that owns a strong brand obviously wants to leverage it to sell as much as possible, but the very strategies used to purse this end often also bring the danger of brand dilution."
jono
361
Member
499 days
jwillia852 posted 9 weeks ago.
Brand Dilution...
Sure - but that is an issue with any popular company in any industry, and like any industry, the goal is to make shareholders happy. And the fact is, (or so I would assume :-), the big wigs will retire on the relationship with Timex, the wetsuits, and other misc gear anyway.
What better way to increase their valuation than to expand their brand into a space where they can continue to collect huge entry fees and solicit merchandise. As I said in my OP, I think it would be sweet for them to create an IM series. One, because they could make money, but two, it would give the local, competitive, amateur racers more access to something worth more than a podium finish at your local sprint race.
Jeff
2255
Member
701 days
TriSooner posted 9 weeks ago.
jwillia852 wrote:
On a pure business standpoint, why doesn't Ironman slap their branding onto Olympic or even select sprint distance races to create a broader Ironman series?
jwillia852 wrote:
We see Ironman 140.6 races and Ironman 70.3 races, I am just curious to why we haven't seen Ironman Branding/Trademarks/Logos tagged all over races at the Olympic and even sprint distance level.
+1 Brand dilution. Allowing a sprint or Olympic distance race to use the Ironman brand in their race title would very quickly erode all value of that brand. "Hey, look at me! I did the Ironman at the local Y! That 300m pool swim was so hard, but I'm an Ironman!" Their brand value would tank so fast. Brand "image" is such a nebulous concept and can't stand up to the details of distinguishing distances. "Image" is a feeling, an emotion conjured by a product or company (or in this case, an event). It would lose all significance if that "image" required analytical skill to decipher how many meters or miles? For example, what comes to mind (for runners) when you hear, "Boston"? It's just a word for a city, but in this case it represents qualifying for an elite event. It creates very visceral images, varying among runners, but the image is all about a exclusivity and prestige. Now, if the Boston Athletic Association were to start sponsoring the "Boston Marathon 5k" or "Boston Marathon Relay," that too would 1) dilute their exclusivity and 2) cause confusion. Did you qualify and run *the* Boston Marathon or the 5k? Maybe I'm a curmudgeon (ok, I am a curmudgeon), but most (?) of the field at Boston is made up of fund raisers and as such, simply running Boston has lost all value unless entry was gained through qualification. It's a sad thing that many/most of who run Boston "bought" their way into it. The first question I ask when someone says they ran Boston is, "At which race did you qualify?" Yes, I'm nosey, but not so nosey as to ask if they qualified or bought their way through some charity or tour group. Asking where they qualified usually gets me off the hook because in my experience, those who qualified are more than happy to tell you which race and in what time. And those who "charitied" quickly cop to that too becuase they don't want to be pressed for details. FWIW, I think the 70.3 was a risky move too for the same reason. I'm doing "Longhorn Ironman 70.3" in October, but the website URL is www.ironmanlonghorn.com. Do you see the problem? Ironman Canada vs. Ironman Longhorn. How many people know the difference? Longhorn has poached the image of a 140.6 Ironman. If I were C-level at the WTC, I would've nixed that URL immediatley and asked legal why they hell they didn't put URL stipulations in the branding agreement with the Lonhorn RD?
That problem exists to a similar extent with the incorrect perception of the interchangeability of the terms "triathlon" and "Ironman." While I think the distinction has become more understood, there are still many (non-athletes) that hear the term "triathlon" and they conjure up images of Kona on NBC and think all triathlons are the same, ie, all triathlons are 140.6. Maybe I'm the only one who has overhead such a conversation, but the "ooohs" and "aaahs" over finishing any triathlon give me the impression that (some) people don't know the difference. Hence, why I *never* talk about triathlon at work. "First rule of Ironman: do not talk about Ironman."
2255
Member
701 days
TriSooner posted 9 weeks ago.
jwillia852 wrote:
Sure - but that is an issue with any popular company in any industry, and like any industry, the goal is to make shareholders happy.
WTC is privately held, so no shareholders. WTC has to protect the prestige of Ironman to ensure that other companies will want to buy the rights to use that image on their brand. They (WTC) lose prestige of that brand and no one will care to buy it. Their one and only product is that little M-dot. They don't 'own' any capital but that M-dot(r) and the image it conjures. Do you think Timex and treadmills etc want to get involved with some company that sponsors goof off sprints (sorry, not trying to be rude). But start sponsoring races that couch potatos can finish and no one will see your watch as anything special.
37
Member
344 days
dbos2002 posted 9 weeks ago.
Wait wait wait, you guys are missing a much bigger point. What would all this mean for my M-Dot tattoo? Hahaha
- Doran
"Ironman is not just a race, not just a title, its a lifestyle"
2255
Member
701 days
133
Member
296 days
katarddx posted 9 weeks ago.
dbos2002 wrote:
Wait wait wait, you guys are missing a much bigger point. What would all this mean for my M-Dot tattoo? Hahaha
laser tatto removal (more painfull then IM) - oh man what a great line for laser removal????
CroatiaN SensatioN
361
Member
499 days
jwillia852 posted 9 weeks ago.
TriSooner wrote:
+1 Brand dilution. Allowing a sprint or Olympic distance race to use the Ironman brand in their race title would very quickly erode all value of that brand. "Hey, look at me! I did the Ironman at the local Y! That 300m pool swim was so hard, but I'm an Ironman!" Their brand value would tank so fast.
See OP...
I wrote:
It wouldn't be generic and your one and done 'triathletes' that we talk about all day on here wouldn't be involved unless they 'qualified'. What it would do is offer more opportunity to expand their brand as the MDot will be more visible. I mean, how may IM's do you do/year? And yet, how many non IM triathlons/year do you do? All opportunities. With the thousands and thousands of athletes who have completed IM/HIM it is a niche market that is larger than others we see, and one that I am surprised has not been capitalized on.
(Oh, and to keep the IM'ers happy and to prevent the NBC celebrity types from diluting the brand they could make it a series that you would need to qualify into (i.e. complete an IM <13, HIM <5))
Plus, how many people on here (sooner?) are looking for a way to race in a more exclusive/competitive setting?
TriSooner wrote:
WTC is privately held, so no shareholders. WTC has to protect the prestige of Ironman to ensure that other companies will want to buy the rights to use that image on their brand. They (WTC) lose prestige of that brand and no one will care to buy it.
I understand, but my point is that the goal of all for profit companies is to make money - even executives at private companies need to report up to someone (VC's, B of D's, Spouses). I've never met an executive who didn't have a five year plan to grow business x%. If it wasn't about the dough, we wouldnt be dropping 5 C-notes to race.
Jeff
71
Member
317 days
dkhartung posted 9 weeks ago.
Yeah, dropping five C-notes to race... I was wondering when that was going to come up. So, why would we WANT the large corporate entity to move down market? I'm fairly sure I know what would happen to the entry fees.
I think Jono was spot on in his brand dilution point. Just look at other luxury brands that have attempted to extend downmarket. As I recall, it took Porsche more than ten years to recover from releasing their little 914 super-volkswagen. So, I'd "advise" them to stay up market, and "hope" that they stay there anyways.
715
Member
677 days
TonisTri posted 9 weeks ago.
And while we're at it, has anyone else noticed that people are starting to call 13.1 a marathon? As in, "I ran a 13.1 marathon last weekend!" 13.1 is NOT a marathon. It's just a 13.1 mile run. I feel the same way about the Ironman. I am signed up for a 70.3 next year. And when I cross the finish line, I will be no more an ironman than I will be a purple elephant. It's just not the same thing.
That which does not kill me makes me faster...
1704
Member
549 days
jtrimom posted 9 weeks ago.
TonisTri wrote:
And while we're at it, has anyone else noticed that people are starting to call 13.1 a marathon? As in, "I ran a 13.1 marathon last weekend!" 13.1 is NOT a marathon. It's just a 13.1 mile run. I feel the same way about the Ironman. I am signed up for a 70.3 next year. And when I cross the finish line, I will be no more an ironman than I will be a purple elephant. It's just not the same thing.
some people call any organized running race a marathon. They just have no clue..."My grandson just ran a 5k marathon last weekend"...or "How long was the marathon that you did?" LOVE that :(
Taper Naked
361
Member
499 days
jwillia852 posted 9 weeks ago.
TonisTri wrote:
And when I cross the finish line, I will be no more an ironman than I will be a purple elephant. It's just not the same thing.
True, but when you do complete your IM (Because you will) you will qualify to compete in the exclusive 'Ironman Triathlon Series' [cue inspirational music]
Remember, something like this would not be available to anyone, only the tens of thousands of athletes who have actually completed an IM or HIM, and some of whom have no interest in doing another (opportunity). A series like this would give you an opportunity to compete against other athletes and make your races worth something.
But... as it is... all just an idea and a conversation. :-) It's what I do.
DKHART, the flaw in your Porsche example is what you wish they were vs. what they are designed to do. I have always been a 911 fan but have come to have resentment towards Porsche b/c of the boxter, cayenne, and blahhh panamera. - although as an at-heart-Capitalist I have to respect what they do.
Jeff
5782
Member
2080 days
beads1985 posted 9 weeks ago.
I think it would mean I would have to shell out a couple hundred bucks to compete in an 'Ironman sprint triathlon' ;-)
'Nothing to it, but to do it!'
492
Member
1619 days
triNick posted 9 weeks ago.
jwillia852 wrote:
On a pure business standpoint, why doesn't Ironman slap their branding onto Olympic or even select sprint distance races to create a broader Ironman series?I understand protecting the brand and the exclusivity of the big event, but they do brand the 70.3 races which technically aren't Ironman races.
What, do you want the WTC to take over the triathlon world? hahaha....
The 70.3 is a brand, an off-shoot that they invented, well sort of, since 1/2 iron distance tri's already existed. It was a way for them to leverage their Ironman brand into a new short distance series and gobble up more market share and more of our $$$.
On a side note, the WTC bought out the 5430 race organization, which in fact runs an olympic distance race in Colorado. I'm guessing we will see the re-branding of the 5430 half iron / long course race to a 70.3 race soon. Haven't heard and can't imagine yet what they are going to re-brand if so the olympic distance race.
Not sure if they would consider an olympic distance series, haven't heard that, but like the saying goes "anything is possible"...
TRImapper.com - visual triathlon finder
TRIJUICE.com - triathlon news and resource site
361
Member
499 days
jwillia852 posted 9 weeks ago.
triNick wrote:
What, do you want the WTC to take over the triathlon world? hahaha.... Well, they could if they wanted. And if I ran the show, they would... ;-)
The 70.3 is a brand, an off-shoot that they invented, well sort of, since 1/2 iron distance tri's already existed. It was a way for them to leverage their Ironman brand into a new short distance series and gobble up more market share and more of our $$$. EXACTLY ! Now, were talking.
Jeff
3889
Member
1722 days
Anton posted 9 weeks ago.
I dunno...just the thought of having to qualify up at ANY race distance, makes me wanna heave. Leave the qualifying stuff to the really special races like Boston and Kona. Having just average folks being able to pony up the cash and get in is much more fun and a lot less elitist.
"If e wishes to sweem in dangerous waters, oo are we to deny im?
-Chef Skinner
http://antonspath.blogspot.com
2322
Member
1894 days
PrinceofClydes posted 9 weeks ago.
jwillia852 wrote:
Well, they could if they wanted. And if I ran the show, they would... ;-)
EXACTLY ! Now, were talking.
Sounds like you're auditioning for a marketing job with WTC.
heh.
Just remember us little people when you hit the big time.
PoC
""Your ass looks fantastic. Are the kids in bed yet???"
- TonisTri. 10/2009
588
Member
441 days
jnrice posted 9 weeks ago.
Wait... can someone actually own the term "triathlon?" Isn't it just a word, like saying, "I own the word bike so that means you all ride two wheeled pedal vehicles." Anyway, interesting thread. i don't have any strong feelings on it. I don't care much for the prestige of doing an "Iron Man" I just want to race Iron Distance races. M dot races should be well run, and in my mind that is ALL you are buying. Screw the tattoo. The day that I smoked a guy in an oly who was talking smack pre-race with his m dot tat I decided I don't need one. It's just a race.
2322
Member
1894 days
PrinceofClydes posted 9 weeks ago.
jnrice wrote:
..
It's just a race.
heh.
PoC
""Your ass looks fantastic. Are the kids in bed yet???"
- TonisTri. 10/2009
451
Member
717 days
Warrior posted 9 weeks ago.
TonisTri wrote:
And while we're at it, has anyone else noticed that people are starting to call 13.1 a marathon? As in, "I ran a 13.1 marathon last weekend!" 13.1 is NOT a marathon. It's just a 13.1 mile run. I feel the same way about the Ironman. I am signed up for a 70.3 next year. And when I cross the finish line, I will be no more an ironman than I will be a purple elephant. It's just not the same thing.
Well let us know how it feels to be half purple and half an elephant then :-) By the way I saw your pic, I reckon the only way you will purple is with the cold, and you could never be an elephant.
Dreams are the stars which charter the course of our lives. Happy the one who follows their dreams
361
Member
499 days
jwillia852 posted 8 weeks ago.
Warrior wrote:
Well let us know how it feels to be half purple and half an elephant then :-) By the way I saw your pic, I reckon the only way you will purple is with the cold, and you could never be an elephant.
Must be an inside joke...
Jeff
1
Member
53 days
Furthur posted 7 weeks ago.
jwillia852 wrote:
Warrior wrote:Well let us know how it feels to be half purple and half an elephant then :-) By the way I saw your pic, I reckon the only way you will purple is with the cold, and you could never be an elephant.
Must be an inside joke...
i believe it was an attempt at flattery towards a mating proposal
On a pure business standpoint, why doesn't Ironman slap their branding onto Olympic or even select sprint distance races to create a broader Ironman series?
I understand protecting the brand and the exclusivity of the big event, but they do brand the 70.3 races which technically aren't Ironman races.
(Oh, and to keep the IM'ers happy and to prevent the NBC celebrity types from diluting the brand they could make it a series that you would need to qualify into (i.e. complete an IM <13, HIM <5))
Jeff