Great, even more of the dreaded conversations and boasts... "I did an Ironman this weekend, it was so tiring since I've never raced for two hours straight before..."
"I hear you did an Ironman. How far?"
[quote=jhudalla]I think they are more profit driven than the prior owners were.[/quote]
They were bought out by an equity company a few years ago and now have been on a rampage, expanding the 70.3 series to 49 some races. Lets say the average 70.3 race has 2,000 people and that the average fee is $250, that's 49 * 2000 * 250 = $24.5M in registration fees alone, now add in the merchandise, WOW!
The addition of these new 5150 races takes money away from those companies that use to run those races, not all are new, just a few. That will still generate revenue. What will be the price of an Olympic distance race, $150 - $175.
They were careful not to tie in the Ironman brand name.
More races on the calendar and triathletes are complaining?
And....if anyone thinks a company trying to make a profit is a bad thing, I really hope they work (for free) at a non-profit and/or live in China, Cuba or N. Korea!
A couple hundred bucks to be supported during a half IM--or $600 for a full M-Dot race is not exactly a rip off, imho. Planning and hosting an event, closing down streets, redirecting traffic, setting up a medical tent, etc. doesn't come without a cost.
And as for the "5150" - I think it's an awesome name (it's the police code for someone who needs a 72 hour psych evaluation).
[quote=jhudalla]Well, they are definitely in it to make money.[/quote]
It didn't take me too far into the article before I grumbled, "Money grab."
[quote=triNick]They were careful not to tie in the Ironman brand name.[/quote]
From the press release ...
[i]"Today, World Triathlon Corporation (WTC), best known for its worldwide [u]Ironman[/u] and Ironman 70.3 races, announces the launch of a new global event series titled 5150."[/i]
Seems really close to me. "Ironman" appears prominently in the first sentence and is clearly used to establish credibility and panache of the soon-to-follow announcement. The words "Ironman" and "5150" are separated by only a dozen words. Confusion will exist over whether 5150 is an Ironman, or worse: whether Ironman is "just" a 5150 (Olympic). If the WTC wants to expand into shorter distances, fine, but keep those races' brand images far removed and visually distinct from the M-dot. The "M-dot" is all the WTC has of any value and they're diluting it. It took how long? 20 years for that name ("Ironman") and logo to become recognizable and now they're co-opting it with Olympics? Bad move. A freshman Marketing student at a mid-grade State U serving an internship could've to them that. It deteriorated when they co-branded half distances by calling them “Ironman (city) 70.3” and now their piggy-backing the Ironman phrase to promote Olympic races. What’s next? YMCA pool swim tris? This is like Rolex selling watches in Walmart and Mercedes-Benz manufacturing cars to compete with entry-level sub-compacts.
Go to www.5150.com and see what looks familiar. The number one (1) in 5150 is even colored and shaped comparably to the m-dot (ie, the 1-dot). Also, "Ironman" appears five times on their homepage. I would consider that a very close tie-in. The WTC needs help with their branding. "5150" is also a section of the California State Code for [b]Involuntary Pychiatric Code", usually used by police to describe a mentally disturbed and dangerous person.
The people at "Iron-distance" races have a golden opportunity to capitalize on the confusing messaging of the WTC. Create your marketing campaign and imagery around the notion that you have "Only One Distance". You're not making it easier for people to call themselves a "triathlete" or "Ironman." Your races, unlike Ironman's Olympic races, are not low-hanging fruit for bucket-listers to name drop at cocktail parties. You're not offering distances to please weekend warriors and soccer moms. Put "140.6" in the name of your race. You're saying that you're laying out 140.6 miles and [i]if[/i] you finish, no one will wonder, "How far was that?" or "Which distance did you do at Ironman?"
[quote=dkhartung]even more of the dreaded conversations and boasts...
[/quote]
Ol' Timer: "I've finished an Ironman."
Noob: "How far was it."
And . . . scene!
Ol' Timer: "I've finished Ironman Germany. It's in Frankfurt."
Noob: "Cool, me too. I totally rocked that bike course in, like, an hour."
Ol' Timer: "For Sale: One Used Tri Bike."
And . . . scene!
[quote=Nobody]More races on the calendar and triathletes are complaining? [/quote]
I'm not getting the vibe that people are complaining about more races. I don't blame them for capitalizing on their brand to expand their market share. Good for them. They've got a product people want. Rather, I think there is some discontent about Ironman hosting/running/marketing/licensing (whatever you want to call it) shorter and shorter races, thus minimizing an iconic accomplishment of a "real" Ironman.
It feels like the "Boston Marathon [size=8]5k[/size]."
[i]Exerpts from the article:[/i]
"But the move into races less than 25% the distance of the traditional Ironman triathlon risks [u]diluting the brand[/u]. "With this move into the Olympic distance, it will be interesting to see if Ironman can remain authentic to the original challenge," says Simon Whitfield . . . Veteran racer Mark Allen thinks World Triathlon's move into shorter, Olympic distance triathlons is a smart business move. But as an athlete, he says the 5150 series can't compare with the traditional Ironman."
I'm going back to gut wrenching big walls and "Damn! I almost died!" alpine climbing.
Thank goodness Ultras are just too tough to really grow that much.
It is time for Fat ass triathlon.
Well, I have never done an IM and I am disappointed. I agree it is the adulteration of what is considered a feat. I, for one, was/am working toward an IM for several reasons, not the least of which, is the right to the tat! I recall being sick to my stomach when someone wrote on here that a guy had an m-dot tattoo on race morning and it was his [i][b]first[/i][/b] IM! Somewhat presumptuous....to say the least...
Anyway....I wonder how many will get the m-dot with a little 5150 underneath it?
Perhaps Coke is the last [i][b]real[/i][/b] thing?
[quote=Anton]"Triathlon is the new golf."[/quote]
If I could golf for crap, I would of never bought a bike. The only thing that looks worse than some of the golfing attire, is cycling gear.
[quote=TriSooner]
[quote=jhudalla]Well, they are definitely in it to make money.[/quote]
It didn't take me too far into the article before I grumbled, "Money grab."
[/quote]
Yup, it reminded me of when Apple started making laptops, then mp3 players, then phones, and now ipads. What are they thinking? Money hungry old white male corporate suits. I HOPE OBAMA MAKES YOU PAY MORE TAXES!
[quote=Nobody]More races on the calendar and triathletes are complaining?
[/quote]
it's only a few new races, other just joing the new series with the 5150 reference.
one thing that people are worried about is the cost and the non-drafting format. keeping the seperation between profits and format / rules in place. we have plenty examples.
we all love our favorite, small, homegrown races just as much as well produced races. the problem is the muscle being implement with the take over or creating of new races. have you seen/read about the 60-day blackout period around the new im 70.3 muncie race? you can read about the topic on Slowtwitch on the front page article or in the forums
[quote=TriSooner][quote=triNick]They were careful not to tie in the Ironman brand name.[/quote]
Seems really close to me. "Ironman" appears prominently in the first sentence and is clearly used to establish credibility and panache of the soon-to-follow announcement. The words "Ironman" and "5150" are separated by only a dozen words. Confusion will exist over whether 5150 is an Ironman, or worse: whether Ironman is "just" a 5150 (Olympic). If the WTC wants to expand into shorter distances, fine, but keep those races' brand images far removed and visually distinct from the M-dot. The "M-dot" is all the WTC has of any value and they're diluting it. It took how long? 20 years for that name ("Ironman") and logo to become recognizable and now they're co-opting it with Olympics? Bad move. A freshman Marketing student at a mid-grade State U serving an internship could've to them that. It deteriorated when they co-branded half distances by calling them “Ironman (city) 70.3” and now their piggy-backing the Ironman phrase to promote Olympic races. What’s next? YMCA pool swim tris? This is like Rolex selling watches in Walmart and Mercedes-Benz manufacturing cars to compete with entry-level sub-compacts.
[/quote]
Guessing they don't want to get dragged into an Antitrust / Monopoly lawsuit, especially with that 60-day blackout i mentioned earlier.
From Dan post on Slowtwitch:
There are significant departures from the 5150 series and the way Ironman has executed its branding in the past.
Ironman has always been in the name. Even 70.3 events carry the Ironman name, for example, Ironman 70.3 California, or Ironman 70.3 Muncie. It isn't "Ironman 5150." In the case of this new brand, "Ironman" is absent. This lack of the Ironman name in a WTC event brand is unprecedented, with the exception of Irongirl events.
Also new is the lack of brand continuity in the naming of these events. WTC has been routinely strict about the way it presents both the Ironman and Ironman 70.3 brands and logos, a practice noted in companies (WTC included) heavily reliant in the weight the brand carries. More than half of the races in the just-announced 5150 series do not carry the 5150 name in the race title.
Brodsky pointed out, however, that he'll advertise his Washington DC race with "A 5150 series event" just below the name of his race, as part of the logo lock-up.
"We're still the Nautica New York City Triathlon presented by RCN," Korff noted about his 5150 series event, and that is part of the appeal to Korff. Whether the subordination of WTC's new brand name will help build it remains to be seen.
[quote=triNick]From Dan post on Slowtwitch: There are significant departures from the 5150 series and the way Ironman has executed its branding in the past . . . [/quote]
That poster can qualify all he wants his assertion that 5150 is a departure from Ironman. I believe what I can see with my two own eyes on ironman.com:
I wondered what took them so long... I brought this topic up a while ago. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out and to see how far off our discussion was from reality.
And to that point, I know it won't happen, but it would have been cool to see them use this series to channel people into their larger events through... say... quality control measures (i.e make it an actual race series). There is enough demand of the brand that they could opt to exclusivity and still see just as may commas on their P&L.
No more WTC races for me after Arizona. I signed up for the race well before I started getting sick of the WTC debacles.
I liken it to the mortgage mess that got us into the financial mess we are in today. How long before someone starts putting together there equivelant of the mortgage derivative.
P1 - "I raced an Ironman"
P2 - "Which one?"
P1 - "The derivative"
P2 - "Huh ?"
P1 - "Swam in France, Rode two months later at Lake Placid and ran in Novemeber at Florida"
P2 - "And your transition times ?"
P1 - "They are still calculating those, its a complicated process"
P2 - "And your tatoo ?"
P1 - "Well earned for the hardest race I have ever done"
[quote=TriSooner]It feels like the "Boston Marathon [size=8]5k[/size]."[/quote]
Ha ha! I completely agree. Also, has anyone noticed the medals are a little cheaper than they used to be? I have marathon hardware that is bigger, heavier, and thicker than my IRONMAAAAAAAAN hardware. Shouldn't it scale? At IMOO, I seriously got a cheap kswiss bag and ZERO other schwag. WTF!
... except they're not calling it "Ironman". None of the races have "Ironman" in the name, the series doesn't have "Ironman" in the name, the only clue of an association is the style of the "i" in the 5150 logo to the Ironman "M".
Could people claim they're doing "Ironman" when they're doing 5150? I guess, but you could do that now with a Sprint distance. Or you can tell people you're doing a marathon when you're only doing a 1/2 or 10k...
How many companies have you seen that expqand and expand...only to fold soon after? Too much expansion. Sometimes the expansion is an effort to stave off collapse.
i don't see the big deal. we all know what an ironman is, what kona is, and if you have completed one. the significance of the event has little to do with the sponsor, as long as they do not change the event itself. i hope the series means some of these (already quality) races are even better supported.
and i am not sure why this particular group cares. i see a lot of triathletes that care what other people think, but those are the folks we are usually complaining about - often riding or transitioning like everyone else should get out of their way.
btw - i'm glad apple started making more than computers. not only is their stock like a bank account that keeps on giving, but they did wonders to organize and make digital music, pictures, text, etc accessible. put your itunes on shuffle and rediscover all the gems in your music library.
Yes, this is a terrible move for the long term value of the ironman brand. It was bad enough when they slapped Ironman on the 70.3, but now they will lose even more of the authenticity of the Ironman name.
I buy brands for a living and even looked at trying to buy WTC a few years back before Providence did. We concluded at the time that they needed to do some clean up work because they had over licensed the name a while back.
Of course their goal is profits and cash flow, but this is a bad trade to gain short term traction for the 5150 series that will detract from the long term authenticity of the Ironman brand. In the branding world, there's a way to do this - They could have created an endorsement position for the launch.
But sadly, they are facing a few issues. Racers are becoming less happy with the ability to put in the Ironman race. It's getting Chintzier and they are trying to save costs, which is understandable from a short term profit perspective, but does make the brand suffer in the long run. So they are dealing with some diminution of the core brand in its core category AND they are expanding it into other categories that are not core to the main service brand.
And olive - I think you missed your own point. Apple did start making more than computers, but you don't hold a MacMusic or a MacPhone in your hand do you? No, the people who make Macs (Apple) brought you and iphone. You made the point beautifully!
Why is it so terrible? More supply of races equates to a lower price overall against others competing in the market. Isn't that a good thing? If you don't like WTC, don't race their races. It's the only way they will learn. Is it a money grab? Of course! Someone has come up with a way to market their brand and isolate a huge section of the market. Good for them. Until someone or something else can market themselves just as well, they will continue to rake in the money until more experienced and seasoned athletes recognize it.
You must ask yourself, Why do I do this thing called an IRONMAN? Is it so I can brag and say that I am an IRONMAN, or is it to prove to yourself something deeper and more eternal? Or both perhaps?
If you are doing if for the earlier, than yes I can see why the rambling and complaining. I mean what's in a name. Look at the bigger picture, more people doing tri's= less expensive gear. More people doing tri's= better health= lower insurance premiums (wishing, but in theory it works). More people doing tri's= more competition (possible, or more 1 and doners) in that case that pushes more MOPers to FOPers. Yeah it pisses you off when people talk tri's and someone says I did an IRONMAN last year- it was a hard 2 hour race. But in reality who really cares. Most people with about 10 minutes of research can figure out that an IRONMAN is a certain race distance and not just any triathlon. You can't change the world and correct all the uneducated.
There needs to be a separation between IRONMAN and the WTC, especially when the term has become common vocabulary in this world.
cj - i wrote this really thoughful post about how i did not get your point about apple. but then trifuel did not reload. allow me to summarize as i've got to go running, before the locker room fills up at noon.
iphone, itunes, ipod, whatever, they are all apple products to me. given how these products have been a big driver of people switching from pc's to mac's, i don't see how apple has distanced itself from any of these offshoots.
so the question is ... is 5i50 an ipod? i don't see why not, as long as they keep up the quality. if my first sprint or oly is a 5i50 and it is a well run event, i might be likely to stick with Ironman produced events.
it seems to me that the issue here is more about people's egos that diluting the brand. again, assuming they can keep up the quality of the experience.
Chessyman 140.6 next September. Let's make it an east coast trifuel get together. Half the price and all the fun. And no pesky Ironman name to confuse folks ;-)
[quote=jonovision_man]
... except they're not calling it "Ironman". Could people claim they're doing "Ironman" when they're doing 5150?[/quote]
Other than linking to 5150 from ironman dot com and using "Ironman" six times in their press release and "Ironman" appears six times on 5150.com. Could people claim their doing an Ironman? It will probably be a little white lie by omission: "I'm doing Ironman[size=8] 5150[/size] Florida!" Mention Ironman and let the uninformed assume it's a "real" Ironman.
[quote=olivestri]the significance of the event has little to do with the sponsor, as long as they do not change the event itself . . . and i am not sure why this particular group cares. [/quote]
That's the point - they [i]did[/i] change the event. Not literally change the distance, but they changed the Ironman I know - "Swim 2.4, Bike 112, Run 26.2, brag for the rest of your life" - to[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870329850457553435318849573... "Ironman that anyone can finish."[/url] Why does this group care? I can't speak for anyone else, but I care because when I put in the hard work to finish Ironman, it [i]was[/i] an exclusive acheievement and created a feeling of unique accomplishment. Much of the Ironman mystique was created through the imagery of "Ironman" - both the word, the icon, the sacrifice and suffereing. Now that this image has been loaned to shorter and shorter distances, the original accomplishment has been diminished.
[quote=cjhoffmn]So they are dealing with some diminution of the core brand in its core category AND they are expanding it into other categories that are not core to the main service brand.[/quote]
That's probably more of a senior-level Marketing concept. Maybe WTC missed that day too.
[quote=olivestri]it seems to me that the issue here is more about people's egos [/quote]
That has something to do with it. I used to think that I did something that most other triathletes cannot or will not do. But by diluting the brand and confusing the message, "Ironman" has managed to 'dumb it down", appeal to everyone, lower the barrier to entry, let anyone in the club. It's like giving trophies to every team or not keeping score in Pee Wee football. No one can be made to feel "different" or "not a winner." We have culturally de-evolved to an "It's not fair" mentality that some people have worked to accomplish something special. So instead we need to make that same "accomplishment" available to anyone so they can all wrap themselves in the Ironman image. This is like "No Child Left Behind". We have the triathlon version - "No Triathlete Left Behind" (aka, "You can all call yourselves 'Ironman'.")
For me, this is what it boils down to: Sharing an accomplishement - the right to use the term "Ironman" - with people who didn't do the work. I took a summer school course at Princeton. Can I call myself an Ivy League alumus? I was in the ROTC in High School. Can I get a USMC tattoo? I drove my car up Pikes Peak. Can I say I summitted a 14er? Let's think about it in marathon terms: Why not do away with the qualifying times at Boston? How do you think those who have qualified would react? Why not do away with cut-off times altogether? ("Come race New York! The city that never sleeps has a marathon clock that doesn't stop!") Why not give entrants of all events - 5k, 10k, 13.1, 26.2 - the same medal? What do you think would happen if a major metro marathon - which also hosted a 13.1 event - gave the same medal, finisher shirt, hats, etc. to participants of both events? Do you think the 26.2ers would be a bit peeved they have to share their medal - which signifies their accomplishment - with someone who did half the work?
hey tri sooner. i agree with you about the medals. this thing where everyone gets a medal seems dumb to me. or they hold graduation ceremonies for completing 2nd, 3rd, or whatever random grade. there are reasons why we mark significant events, milestones in life and the more we dilute them the more we loose our way.
but, i don't think expanding the ironman brand to a larger class of races dilutes the accomplishment. you and i and everyone else who cares knows that you've got to bust your butt and be incrediably focused to complete an ironman or any 140.6 event. anyone else who boasts or is confused that their shorter event is an ironman is not worth it - just smile and go on your way.
one of my favorite triathlon moments was at an office meeting when my boss brought up to the group that i was doing a triathlon that weekend. people asked how long it was, i explained (it was an olympic), and my boss went on to say it was not that long and she could do it (if it wasn't for the swim). i just smiled and nodded and thought about how insecure she is.
for a country built on insecurity, i live in a rather insecure part of it, and anyone trying to boast about something that they are so obviously not should be ignored.
Who cares? The name is only important because people obsess over it. It's a self-fullfilling issue. It's like eating a pot of beans and then complaining about your flatulance. You did it to yourself.
We all come on this site and talk about how we don't even talk to non-triathletes anymore because they don't understand BUT this thread turns around and complains that if they dilute the brand then non-triathletes might confuse the meaning. "Waaaa, nobody understands what my tattoo means anymore." WTF??? Which one is it? At least admit to the fact that you want all eyes on you. I can't deal with the hypocracy.
In my opinion, the value is in the distance and not a brand. Triathletes ALL understand each distance. That's all that matters. If you aren't in the triathlon community, then you don't give a damn anyway. I'm personally not gonna pay for the brand name. I end how I began. Who cares?
[quote=TriSooner][quote=jonovision_man]
... except they're not calling it "Ironman". Could people claim they're doing "Ironman" when they're doing 5150?[/quote]
Other than linking to 5150 from ironman dot com and using "Ironman" six times in their press release and "Ironman" appears six times on 5150.com. Could people claim their doing an Ironman? It will probably be a little white lie by omission: "I'm doing Ironman[size=8] 5150[/size] Florida!" Mention Ironman and let the uninformed assume it's a "real" Ironman.[/quote]
But the race isn't called "Ironman 5150 Florida", it's called "Miami International Triathlon", or "St. Anthony’s Triathlon", or "5150 Clearwater". Even if you omit 5150, you are still left without a reference to Ironman.
And anyone inclined to call the "Miami International Triathlon" an Ironman is probably already doing it with whatever Sprint or try-a-tri they're doing today. You can't stop that, and I don't see how this series is going to encourage it.
[quote=TriSooner]Why not do away with the qualifying times at Boston? How do you think those who have qualified would react? [/quote]
QED: The day after I qualified for Boston, I read on facebook that a peer (and 4:30+ marathoner) just registered for Boston via a charity spot. I didn't donate to his/her cause. Nor have I registered for Boston, though that is a more complicated situation.
This whole thread highlights a big issue I have with a lot of triathletes. It really seems like many triathletes only do triathlon so that they can tell people they do triathlon. Just look at the whole M-dot tattoo culture. I can't see any other reason to get an m-dot tattoo other than to let everyone else know that you did an ironman.
I know we're all human and it's nice to have some validation for our efforts and stuff, but why do we care so much what other people think? Why does anyone care if someone else calls himself an ironman and he only did an 70.3 race? The only reason I can see it being an issue is because you're so concerned that other people know that you're an ironman, and how hard it was, and how so few people have done it, and so on. That's really the only explanation. If you really don't care about what other people think, then they could call 140.6 the "super douche" distance, and it shouldn't matter because you know what you accomplished.
The only reason that distance is called an ironman anyways is because some dudes decided to call it that. They could have just as easily done a dance marathon and called it an ironman, and then people would be freaking out because people didn't last the whole 24 hours and they're still calling themselves ironmen. It's all pretty ridiculous.
[quote=Amphibious Triton]Who cares? The name is only important because people obsess over it. It's a self-fullfilling issue. It's like eating a pot of beans and then complaining about your flatulance. You did it to yourself.
We all come on this site and talk about how we don't even talk to non-triathletes anymore because they don't understand BUT this thread turns around and complains that if they dilute the brand then non-triathletes might confuse the meaning. "Waaaa, nobody understands what my tattoo means anymore." WTF??? Which one is it? At least admit to the fact that you want all eyes on you. I can't deal with the hypocracy.
In my opinion, the value is in the distance and not a brand. Triathletes ALL understand each distance. That's all that matters. If you aren't in the triathlon community, then you don't give a damn anyway. I'm personally not gonna pay for the brand name. I end how I began. Who cares?[/quote]
[quote=olivestri]i don't think expanding the ironman brand to a larger class of races dilutes the accomplishment. you and i and everyone else who cares knows that you've got to bust your butt and be incrediably focused to complete an ironman or any 140.6 event. anyone else who boasts or is confused that their shorter event is an ironman is not worth it - just smile and go on your way.[/quote]
You're right, I need to get over it. Other people's opinions don't matter. You know what you did, yada yada yada. But it's just so fun to rant online about it.
[quote=krazyfranco]I didn't donate to his/her cause.[/quote]
That's awesome.
[quote=ChunkyB]they could call 140.6 the "super douche" distance[/quote]
That's catchy.
Fine! I'll get over it (or get over myself). Seriously, y'all are right: Ironman should mean something to you regardless of what else that brand is used for and that shouldn't change based on what other people know, say, or do about that race. I'll just sit here quietly and rest my head on my desk.
Honestly... Even if you do an IM and come in @ 16:59:30 are you truly an IM? Yes technically, but I could not workout for a year and probably still complete an IM in under that time.
1:45- 2:43/ 100-
8:00 bike- 14 mph- you mah have trouble staying upright at those speed.
7:00 marathon- 16 minute miles- u can almost walk that fast.
Last month I heard a guy talking that he did a HIM. Everyone was impressed as he was about 5'7'' and weighed 350. It only took him 8 hours!
[quote=ChunkyB]Just look at the whole M-dot tattoo culture. I can't see any other reason to get an m-dot tattoo other than to let everyone else know that you did an ironman. [/quote]
Partially. :) I'm proud I did it.
But the main reason I decided to get it: I wanted something I would have to live up to, forever. I would be embarrassed to put the weight back on and have that tattoo staring out at people.
A nice side effect I didn't think of beforehand was that it's a nice conversation starter. I've met a lot of people who just saw the tattoo and struck up a conversation with me, in the line-up at the grocery store, in the middle of a marathon, it's neat. :) Some are fellow IM'ers, some are going for it, some just want to know about it... but as someone who is normally an introvert, I get a kick out of it.
[quote=jonovision_man][
But the main reason I decided to get it: I wanted something I would have to live up to, forever. I would be embarrassed to put the weight back on and have that tattoo staring out at people.
[/quote]
That's actually a great point. Accountability is key.
[quote=ChunkyB]This whole thread highlights a big issue I have with a lot of triathletes. It really seems like many triathletes only do triathlon so that they can tell people they do triathlon. Just look at the whole M-dot tattoo culture. I can't see any other reason to get an m-dot tattoo other than to let everyone else know that you did an ironman.
[/quote]
Everyone has reasons for what they do or don't do. Individuality is what makes the world diverse. People also crave exclusivity and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that.
Those that don't believe in brand exclusivity should google LaCoste and read the history of the brand from it's early years as the preppy icon (when it was Izod-LaCoste) and then what happened when they cheaped it down to where it is now and why--it's definitely making a comeback.
I loved that, Anton! I think the tattoo means different things to different people, and as much as I would like A tattoo, not necessarily an m-dot, at the end of my 1st IM, I won't get one out of respect for my family who suffered in the holocaust. When my brother was a teenager, he got a tattoo of a band name on his upper arm and when my dad saw it, the look of pain and betrayal in his face was NOT one I wanted directed at me....ANYWHO...tattoos mean different things to different people- even the same red, m-dot
I think you put it really well. I guess I had a pretty narrow minded view of the tattoo in particular.
And that post just reiterates why we shouldn't care about what anyone else thinks, and if they dilute the ironman brand. You know what that tattoo represents for you, and that's all that matters. Someone could come up to you and ask "so, how long was your ironman", and you could just laugh to yourself.
Wow this post really took off... I have thought about this brand quite a bit in the past, so please forgive the rather lengthy post.
In reality, the very fact that we've got some "You guys are stupid, who cares?!?" posts shows us that the name is becoming meaningless for WTC. Especially if you are relatively new to tri, the name USED to really stand for something. It became a brand all by itself because of it stood for something - and it was sort of a perfect brand - it denoted a format (swim/bike/run) and a distance (2.4/112/26.2), it denoted a choice of lifestyle that included lots of training etc, and it inspired awe because of how taxing the experience can be. It was valuable to people for their own reasons but was very easy to understand. And whether or not you personally approve of the fact that people valued the name or wanted to use the name for whatever reason is independent of the fact that lots of people did, the name had a lot of value for people personally, and it was unique in that there was room for it to make value financially.
Shortcuts and clarity matter for communication and for brands. Especially in setting goals. When Blazeman was training in the last years of his life and raising awareness for a horrible disease, he was training to run an "Ironman", not a "140.6 mile race where he swam biked and ran." It conveyed a ton of feelings to be able to say that - which could only happen because of the clear history of what it meant to hear "Ironman."
The mere fact that triathletes are now even here discussing that fact that "it's the distance" that matters, not the name "Ironman" goes to show that its losing its importance. It clearly no longer stands for something for some so clearly. In fact,even here, amongst friends, opinions are voiced showing distaste for people who DO care about the brand. That's anti-value for the brand.
Every time WTC does (or allows to happen) something that engenders further confusion in people's minds, further deterioration can occur. So while they associate the name with other distances, they keep the format association, but are letting the distance association get confused. Much of the personal value for people in the name was the distance because it was so herculean seeming to so many.
So Jarhead back to your question to me of why its terrible for the long term value of the brand - because confusion renders the brand less valuable. More supply of races lowering prices etc is all good - for the sport, and for some competitors. But its bad for the brand because for some competitors the brand really stood for something and they were willing to give personal value to the name and financial value to the name by paying more for the races. Even if WTC makes money in the short run by associating the name with things that create less clarity for the brand, it lessens their ability to keep people's personal value in the name and future money.
Humorously enough, some of Trademark law in US was based on the idea that people derive personal value by associating themselves with ideas (shortened to "brands" for easier communication) and it is a right that should be protected for them to do so.
I realize I'm wandering into dangerous territory with this - but stay with me a second, I am trying respectfully to make a comparison.
As a former Marine, I'm sure you take pride in being called one. In your summary description of yourself on this site, its the first thing you say about yourself. Those words inspire awe from me and from many. Without saying anything else, I want to thank you for what you did for me and my country.
Were you a marine because you selfishly wanted people to feel that way later? Did you write that in your description because of that? I doubt it. I think you did it because it was something you did that helps define you and and you are proud of that. As you should be (from my perspective - pacifists might not agree.) And, you didn't write you were a guy that carried a gun and protected our country. You wrote "FORMER marine." (Even showing more respect for "CURRENT marines" with the all caps I presume). Those two simple words convey a lot about you.
For some people, Ironman was an event they could do that gave them something to be proud of and help define themselves. Not just "triathlete." Not just I swim bike and run a long friggen way with a bunch of other people. "Ironman." If I can turn one of your earlier questions around: I can shoot a rifle, paint my face and do 100 pushups. Does that make me a Marine? Uh, no. Would a former or current Marine be happy to tell me that - if I ran around saying "I'm a Marine because I'm big and strong" - uh I don't know, but I like my neck unbroken so I don't think I'll try that anytime soon :)
Olive:
If you saw one of your friends and said "Hey, I just got an apple!" What would happen? If there wasn't just silence, there'd have to be a follow up question, like "An Apple what?" or maybe "A Granny Smith?" (which would be ever harder to follow up ;)) Apple was once just a computer. It was a physical machine made by Apple Computer Corporation. When the Mac came out, they purposely rebranded and changed what people associated with the word Apple.
It came to be that you said "Apple" and most people felt it meant innovation, high quality, and stylish technology products. That happened because Jobs and the rest of the mgt team at the company really understood branding and long term and short term value in names. They created a company - Apple - that makes really great products. They have been very careful with it and it has allowed them to not only survive some disasters (anyone carrying a Newton around?) but create followers of the name that value it personally, and then capitalized on it and it is now a $260 billion company.
Apple is a really great case study because they created massive personal value for people in the top brand name (as you said above "whatever, they are all apple products to me") which gives them latitude to offer lots of products in various categories of technology. "Apple" doesn't mean a really great PHONE or a really great PORTABLE MUSIC PLAYER. It means excellent tech products. There's no confusion there.
"whatever, they are all apple products to me" or not, I don't think too many people walk around saying "I have an Apple phone." They say "I have an iPhone." Apple did a beautiful job of creating the product, the marketing, supporting it from the top brand all the way down. (In fact - they whole "i" thing in and of it self is awesome marketing prowress to me..) They are also very careful about mixing Apple into the product names. Very few of their product brands have the word Apple in them.
"Ironman" HAS been the product brand much like "iPhone" is the product brand. And for many the people who aspire to run an "Ironman," whether or not they are egotistical SOBs, there used to be no confusion. If you did an Ironman, you did the full-on, harder than hell race. Taking pride in doing that can or can't be egotistical. So if Apple created the "iPhone iPad" would that make sense? No. And the more they did it the less iphone would mean because it would create confusion.
Now that WTC is letting the brand get attached to different lengths of races, they are confusing the product brands for many people. This thread proves that. To the extent they let confusion in, they lose value in the name because its less clear what it means. For some, that can be perceived as a good thing. For others, not. To the extent that confusion exists, WTC will lose the ability to clearly communicate with participants which will translate into less long term value to the name.
So now that I've potentially upset a Marine and written way too long of a post here, I'm going to change my name and move to a new state ;) If you've made it this far - thanks for reading.
You just wrote an entire book and I still don't see anything other than another person that WANTS the brand IRONMAN to mean something. Let it go man.
I don't exactly see your point on the Marine comment. If you do a non-IRONMAN event, then you still do the EXACT SAME MILEAGE. Someone saying "I'm a Marine because I'm big and strong" means they're an idiot. I think you might be trying in vain to draw upon emotion but you're lacking substance. Also, I don't believe any logical descision should be based on emotion. No parallel to draw there in my opinion.
I follow your "Apple" theory a little closer but despite all the goodwill they've created I imagine less than 25% of the folks on this forum use an Apple BECAUSE THEY'VE FOUND CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE THE EXACT SAME OR BETTER.
I'm a free-market capitalist so I'm all for IRONMAN making as much money as they possibly can and they're entitled to it. IMHO, you need to bifurcate the differences between what drives our market economy and what is sensible. Usually they run in opposite directions.
Tell me why my kid wants 5,000 Silly Bandz. Why the heck did everybody want a Members Only jacket in the 80s? Why are so many people running in Vibrams? Did Liesure Suits just happen to look good in another decade (but looks pretty stupid in hindsight)?
Humans are generally illogical as a rule and flock together by default. IRONMAN is something a ton of people have gotten behind but the breakdown of what they offer over the alternative shows that it's illogical to pay so much more.
I respect the hell out of people that have done the distance because they put in the training for that distance, not because they paid more to go to a certain event (especially if they didn't have to qualify to get in).
Good grief. Well, they are
Good grief. Well, they are definitely in it to make money. I think they are more profit driven than the prior owners were.
Great, even more of the
Great, even more of the dreaded conversations and boasts... "I did an Ironman this weekend, it was so tiring since I've never raced for two hours straight before..."
"I hear you did an Ironman. How far?"
jhudalla wrote:I think they
[quote=jhudalla]I think they are more profit driven than the prior owners were.[/quote]
They were bought out by an equity company a few years ago and now have been on a rampage, expanding the 70.3 series to 49 some races. Lets say the average 70.3 race has 2,000 people and that the average fee is $250, that's 49 * 2000 * 250 = $24.5M in registration fees alone, now add in the merchandise, WOW!
The addition of these new 5150 races takes money away from those companies that use to run those races, not all are new, just a few. That will still generate revenue. What will be the price of an Olympic distance race, $150 - $175.
They were careful not to tie in the Ironman brand name.
51.5K = 22.8% of the real thing!
"Triathlon is the new golf."
"Triathlon is the new golf."
More races on the calendar
More races on the calendar and triathletes are complaining?
And....if anyone thinks a company trying to make a profit is a bad thing, I really hope they work (for free) at a non-profit and/or live in China, Cuba or N. Korea!
A couple hundred bucks to be supported during a half IM--or $600 for a full M-Dot race is not exactly a rip off, imho. Planning and hosting an event, closing down streets, redirecting traffic, setting up a medical tent, etc. doesn't come without a cost.
And as for the "5150" - I think it's an awesome name (it's the police code for someone who needs a 72 hour psych evaluation).
Just my two lincolns.
Anton wrote:"Triathlon is
[quote=Anton]"Triathlon is the new golf."[/quote]
Yep.
[quote=jhudalla]Well, they are definitely in it to make money.[/quote]
It didn't take me too far into the article before I grumbled, "Money grab."
[quote=triNick]They were careful not to tie in the Ironman brand name.[/quote]
From the press release ...
[i]"Today, World Triathlon Corporation (WTC), best known for its worldwide [u]Ironman[/u] and Ironman 70.3 races, announces the launch of a new global event series titled 5150."[/i]
Seems really close to me. "Ironman" appears prominently in the first sentence and is clearly used to establish credibility and panache of the soon-to-follow announcement. The words "Ironman" and "5150" are separated by only a dozen words. Confusion will exist over whether 5150 is an Ironman, or worse: whether Ironman is "just" a 5150 (Olympic). If the WTC wants to expand into shorter distances, fine, but keep those races' brand images far removed and visually distinct from the M-dot. The "M-dot" is all the WTC has of any value and they're diluting it. It took how long? 20 years for that name ("Ironman") and logo to become recognizable and now they're co-opting it with Olympics? Bad move. A freshman Marketing student at a mid-grade State U serving an internship could've to them that. It deteriorated when they co-branded half distances by calling them “Ironman (city) 70.3” and now their piggy-backing the Ironman phrase to promote Olympic races. What’s next? YMCA pool swim tris? This is like Rolex selling watches in Walmart and Mercedes-Benz manufacturing cars to compete with entry-level sub-compacts.
Go to www.5150.com and see what looks familiar. The number one (1) in 5150 is even colored and shaped comparably to the m-dot (ie, the 1-dot). Also, "Ironman" appears five times on their homepage. I would consider that a very close tie-in. The WTC needs help with their branding. "5150" is also a section of the California State Code for [b]Involuntary Pychiatric Code", usually used by police to describe a mentally disturbed and dangerous person.
The people at "Iron-distance" races have a golden opportunity to capitalize on the confusing messaging of the WTC. Create your marketing campaign and imagery around the notion that you have "Only One Distance". You're not making it easier for people to call themselves a "triathlete" or "Ironman." Your races, unlike Ironman's Olympic races, are not low-hanging fruit for bucket-listers to name drop at cocktail parties. You're not offering distances to please weekend warriors and soccer moms. Put "140.6" in the name of your race. You're saying that you're laying out 140.6 miles and [i]if[/i] you finish, no one will wonder, "How far was that?" or "Which distance did you do at Ironman?"
[quote=dkhartung]even more of the dreaded conversations and boasts...
[/quote]
Noob: "I've done an Ironman."
Ol' Timer: "Cool, which one?"
Noob: "Tunica, Mississippi."
Ol' Timer: "[img=150X100]http://overpixelated.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/picard-facepalm2.jpg?w=...
And . . . scene!
Ol' Timer: "I've finished an Ironman."
Noob: "How far was it."
And . . . scene!
Ol' Timer: "I've finished Ironman Germany. It's in Frankfurt."
Noob: "Cool, me too. I totally rocked that bike course in, like, an hour."
Ol' Timer: "For Sale: One Used Tri Bike."
And . . . scene!
Nobody wrote:More races on
[quote=Nobody]More races on the calendar and triathletes are complaining? [/quote]
I'm not getting the vibe that people are complaining about more races. I don't blame them for capitalizing on their brand to expand their market share. Good for them. They've got a product people want. Rather, I think there is some discontent about Ironman hosting/running/marketing/licensing (whatever you want to call it) shorter and shorter races, thus minimizing an iconic accomplishment of a "real" Ironman.
It feels like the "Boston Marathon [size=8]5k[/size]."
It's already happened. Too
It's already happened. Too late. Cat is out of the bag. Your m-dot tattoo (and mine) now means squat:
[b]Ironman to get less exclusive[/b]
[i]Owner of Legendary 141-Mie Triathlon Plans to Expand With Shorter Races[/i]
[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870329850457553435318849573... Street Journal, Oct. 6[/url]
[i]Exerpts from the article:[/i]
"But the move into races less than 25% the distance of the traditional Ironman triathlon risks [u]diluting the brand[/u]. "With this move into the Olympic distance, it will be interesting to see if Ironman can remain authentic to the original challenge," says Simon Whitfield . . . Veteran racer Mark Allen thinks World Triathlon's move into shorter, Olympic distance triathlons is a smart business move. But as an athlete, he says the 5150 series can't compare with the traditional Ironman."
I'm going back to gut
I'm going back to gut wrenching big walls and "Damn! I almost died!" alpine climbing.
Thank goodness Ultras are just too tough to really grow that much.
It is time for Fat ass triathlon.
Cyndy Lauper was right
Cyndy Lauper was right "Money changes everything."
Well, I have never done an
Well, I have never done an IM and I am disappointed. I agree it is the adulteration of what is considered a feat. I, for one, was/am working toward an IM for several reasons, not the least of which, is the right to the tat! I recall being sick to my stomach when someone wrote on here that a guy had an m-dot tattoo on race morning and it was his [i][b]first[/i][/b] IM! Somewhat presumptuous....to say the least...
Anyway....I wonder how many will get the m-dot with a little 5150 underneath it?
Perhaps Coke is the last [i][b]real[/i][/b] thing?
Anton wrote:"Triathlon is
[quote=Anton]"Triathlon is the new golf."[/quote]
If I could golf for crap, I would of never bought a bike. The only thing that looks worse than some of the golfing attire, is cycling gear.
TriSooner wrote: jhudalla
[quote=TriSooner]
[quote=jhudalla]Well, they are definitely in it to make money.[/quote]
It didn't take me too far into the article before I grumbled, "Money grab."
[/quote]
Yup, it reminded me of when Apple started making laptops, then mp3 players, then phones, and now ipads. What are they thinking? Money hungry old white male corporate suits. I HOPE OBAMA MAKES YOU PAY MORE TAXES!
I-dot? I'm glad they're not
I-dot?
I'm glad they're not calling it "Ironman 5150" at least... seems like it's a bit different from the 70.3, which clearly was brand dilution.
jono
Nobody wrote:More races on
[quote=Nobody]More races on the calendar and triathletes are complaining?
[/quote]
it's only a few new races, other just joing the new series with the 5150 reference.
one thing that people are worried about is the cost and the non-drafting format. keeping the seperation between profits and format / rules in place. we have plenty examples.
we all love our favorite, small, homegrown races just as much as well produced races. the problem is the muscle being implement with the take over or creating of new races. have you seen/read about the 60-day blackout period around the new im 70.3 muncie race? you can read about the topic on Slowtwitch on the front page article or in the forums
love your 5150 police reference...
TriSooner wrote:triNick
[quote=TriSooner][quote=triNick]They were careful not to tie in the Ironman brand name.[/quote]
Seems really close to me. "Ironman" appears prominently in the first sentence and is clearly used to establish credibility and panache of the soon-to-follow announcement. The words "Ironman" and "5150" are separated by only a dozen words. Confusion will exist over whether 5150 is an Ironman, or worse: whether Ironman is "just" a 5150 (Olympic). If the WTC wants to expand into shorter distances, fine, but keep those races' brand images far removed and visually distinct from the M-dot. The "M-dot" is all the WTC has of any value and they're diluting it. It took how long? 20 years for that name ("Ironman") and logo to become recognizable and now they're co-opting it with Olympics? Bad move. A freshman Marketing student at a mid-grade State U serving an internship could've to them that. It deteriorated when they co-branded half distances by calling them “Ironman (city) 70.3” and now their piggy-backing the Ironman phrase to promote Olympic races. What’s next? YMCA pool swim tris? This is like Rolex selling watches in Walmart and Mercedes-Benz manufacturing cars to compete with entry-level sub-compacts.
[/quote]
Guessing they don't want to get dragged into an Antitrust / Monopoly lawsuit, especially with that 60-day blackout i mentioned earlier.
From Dan post on Slowtwitch:
There are significant departures from the 5150 series and the way Ironman has executed its branding in the past.
Ironman has always been in the name. Even 70.3 events carry the Ironman name, for example, Ironman 70.3 California, or Ironman 70.3 Muncie. It isn't "Ironman 5150." In the case of this new brand, "Ironman" is absent. This lack of the Ironman name in a WTC event brand is unprecedented, with the exception of Irongirl events.
Also new is the lack of brand continuity in the naming of these events. WTC has been routinely strict about the way it presents both the Ironman and Ironman 70.3 brands and logos, a practice noted in companies (WTC included) heavily reliant in the weight the brand carries. More than half of the races in the just-announced 5150 series do not carry the 5150 name in the race title.
Brodsky pointed out, however, that he'll advertise his Washington DC race with "A 5150 series event" just below the name of his race, as part of the logo lock-up.
"We're still the Nautica New York City Triathlon presented by RCN," Korff noted about his 5150 series event, and that is part of the appeal to Korff. Whether the subordination of WTC's new brand name will help build it remains to be seen.
jonovision_man
[quote=jonovision_man]
I-dot?
[/quote]
I see the similarity.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_29_4zYZjvXE/S5h5hHSLv7I/AAAAAAAABSg/kc7zzkknif...
Anton wrote: It is time for
[quote=Anton]
It is time for Fat ass triathlon.[/quote]
Thinking about a FA 140.6 next spring, definitely can't afford to do a real one.
any takers for a Colorado Front Range 140.6?
triNick wrote:From Dan post
[quote=triNick]From Dan post on Slowtwitch: There are significant departures from the 5150 series and the way Ironman has executed its branding in the past . . . [/quote]
That poster can qualify all he wants his assertion that 5150 is a departure from Ironman. I believe what I can see with my two own eyes on ironman.com:
[IMG=350X200]http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x158/endurasports/5150.png[/IMG]
Ironman is now an Olympic distance race.
http://www.trifuel.com/forum/
http://www.trifuel.com/forum/20733/ironman-brand
I wondered what took them so long... I brought this topic up a while ago. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out and to see how far off our discussion was from reality.
And to that point, I know it won't happen, but it would have been cool to see them use this series to channel people into their larger events through... say... quality control measures (i.e make it an actual race series). There is enough demand of the brand that they could opt to exclusivity and still see just as may commas on their P&L.
Can't wait for first sprint
Can't wait for first sprint Ultra.... I'm signing up for that one!
Just to lower the bar and get more people involved.
This just reinforced my own
This just reinforced my own racing policy.
No more WTC races for me after Arizona. I signed up for the race well before I started getting sick of the WTC debacles.
I liken it to the mortgage mess that got us into the financial mess we are in today. How long before someone starts putting together there equivelant of the mortgage derivative.
P1 - "I raced an Ironman"
P2 - "Which one?"
P1 - "The derivative"
P2 - "Huh ?"
P1 - "Swam in France, Rode two months later at Lake Placid and ran in Novemeber at Florida"
P2 - "And your transition times ?"
P1 - "They are still calculating those, its a complicated process"
P2 - "And your tatoo ?"
P1 - "Well earned for the hardest race I have ever done"
TriSooner wrote:It feels
[quote=TriSooner]It feels like the "Boston Marathon [size=8]5k[/size]."[/quote]
Ha ha! I completely agree. Also, has anyone noticed the medals are a little cheaper than they used to be? I have marathon hardware that is bigger, heavier, and thicker than my IRONMAAAAAAAAN hardware. Shouldn't it scale? At IMOO, I seriously got a cheap kswiss bag and ZERO other schwag. WTF!
- Boston Marathon 5k... ROFLMAO
... except they're not
... except they're not calling it "Ironman". None of the races have "Ironman" in the name, the series doesn't have "Ironman" in the name, the only clue of an association is the style of the "i" in the 5150 logo to the Ironman "M".
Could people claim they're doing "Ironman" when they're doing 5150? I guess, but you could do that now with a Sprint distance. Or you can tell people you're doing a marathon when you're only doing a 1/2 or 10k...
jono
How many companies have you
How many companies have you seen that expqand and expand...only to fold soon after? Too much expansion. Sometimes the expansion is an effort to stave off collapse.
i don't see the big deal.
i don't see the big deal. we all know what an ironman is, what kona is, and if you have completed one. the significance of the event has little to do with the sponsor, as long as they do not change the event itself. i hope the series means some of these (already quality) races are even better supported.
and i am not sure why this particular group cares. i see a lot of triathletes that care what other people think, but those are the folks we are usually complaining about - often riding or transitioning like everyone else should get out of their way.
btw - i'm glad apple started making more than computers. not only is their stock like a bank account that keeps on giving, but they did wonders to organize and make digital music, pictures, text, etc accessible. put your itunes on shuffle and rediscover all the gems in your music library.
Yes, this is a terrible move
Yes, this is a terrible move for the long term value of the ironman brand. It was bad enough when they slapped Ironman on the 70.3, but now they will lose even more of the authenticity of the Ironman name.
I buy brands for a living and even looked at trying to buy WTC a few years back before Providence did. We concluded at the time that they needed to do some clean up work because they had over licensed the name a while back.
Of course their goal is profits and cash flow, but this is a bad trade to gain short term traction for the 5150 series that will detract from the long term authenticity of the Ironman brand. In the branding world, there's a way to do this - They could have created an endorsement position for the launch.
But sadly, they are facing a few issues. Racers are becoming less happy with the ability to put in the Ironman race. It's getting Chintzier and they are trying to save costs, which is understandable from a short term profit perspective, but does make the brand suffer in the long run. So they are dealing with some diminution of the core brand in its core category AND they are expanding it into other categories that are not core to the main service brand.
And olive - I think you missed your own point. Apple did start making more than computers, but you don't hold a MacMusic or a MacPhone in your hand do you? No, the people who make Macs (Apple) brought you and iphone. You made the point beautifully!
Why is it so terrible? More
Why is it so terrible? More supply of races equates to a lower price overall against others competing in the market. Isn't that a good thing? If you don't like WTC, don't race their races. It's the only way they will learn. Is it a money grab? Of course! Someone has come up with a way to market their brand and isolate a huge section of the market. Good for them. Until someone or something else can market themselves just as well, they will continue to rake in the money until more experienced and seasoned athletes recognize it.
You must ask yourself, Why do I do this thing called an IRONMAN? Is it so I can brag and say that I am an IRONMAN, or is it to prove to yourself something deeper and more eternal? Or both perhaps?
If you are doing if for the earlier, than yes I can see why the rambling and complaining. I mean what's in a name. Look at the bigger picture, more people doing tri's= less expensive gear. More people doing tri's= better health= lower insurance premiums (wishing, but in theory it works). More people doing tri's= more competition (possible, or more 1 and doners) in that case that pushes more MOPers to FOPers. Yeah it pisses you off when people talk tri's and someone says I did an IRONMAN last year- it was a hard 2 hour race. But in reality who really cares. Most people with about 10 minutes of research can figure out that an IRONMAN is a certain race distance and not just any triathlon. You can't change the world and correct all the uneducated.
There needs to be a separation between IRONMAN and the WTC, especially when the term has become common vocabulary in this world.
cj - i wrote this really
cj - i wrote this really thoughful post about how i did not get your point about apple. but then trifuel did not reload. allow me to summarize as i've got to go running, before the locker room fills up at noon.
iphone, itunes, ipod, whatever, they are all apple products to me. given how these products have been a big driver of people switching from pc's to mac's, i don't see how apple has distanced itself from any of these offshoots.
so the question is ... is 5i50 an ipod? i don't see why not, as long as they keep up the quality. if my first sprint or oly is a 5i50 and it is a well run event, i might be likely to stick with Ironman produced events.
it seems to me that the issue here is more about people's egos that diluting the brand. again, assuming they can keep up the quality of the experience.
Chessyman 140.6 next
Chessyman 140.6 next September. Let's make it an east coast trifuel get together. Half the price and all the fun. And no pesky Ironman name to confuse folks ;-)
jonovision_man wrote: ...
[quote=jonovision_man]
... except they're not calling it "Ironman". Could people claim they're doing "Ironman" when they're doing 5150?[/quote]
Other than linking to 5150 from ironman dot com and using "Ironman" six times in their press release and "Ironman" appears six times on 5150.com. Could people claim their doing an Ironman? It will probably be a little white lie by omission: "I'm doing Ironman[size=8] 5150[/size] Florida!" Mention Ironman and let the uninformed assume it's a "real" Ironman.
[quote=olivestri]the significance of the event has little to do with the sponsor, as long as they do not change the event itself . . . and i am not sure why this particular group cares. [/quote]
That's the point - they [i]did[/i] change the event. Not literally change the distance, but they changed the Ironman I know - "Swim 2.4, Bike 112, Run 26.2, brag for the rest of your life" - to[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870329850457553435318849573... "Ironman that anyone can finish."[/url] Why does this group care? I can't speak for anyone else, but I care because when I put in the hard work to finish Ironman, it [i]was[/i] an exclusive acheievement and created a feeling of unique accomplishment. Much of the Ironman mystique was created through the imagery of "Ironman" - both the word, the icon, the sacrifice and suffereing. Now that this image has been loaned to shorter and shorter distances, the original accomplishment has been diminished.
[quote=cjhoffmn]So they are dealing with some diminution of the core brand in its core category AND they are expanding it into other categories that are not core to the main service brand.[/quote]
That's probably more of a senior-level Marketing concept. Maybe WTC missed that day too.
[quote=olivestri]it seems to me that the issue here is more about people's egos [/quote]
That has something to do with it. I used to think that I did something that most other triathletes cannot or will not do. But by diluting the brand and confusing the message, "Ironman" has managed to 'dumb it down", appeal to everyone, lower the barrier to entry, let anyone in the club. It's like giving trophies to every team or not keeping score in Pee Wee football. No one can be made to feel "different" or "not a winner." We have culturally de-evolved to an "It's not fair" mentality that some people have worked to accomplish something special. So instead we need to make that same "accomplishment" available to anyone so they can all wrap themselves in the Ironman image. This is like "No Child Left Behind". We have the triathlon version - "No Triathlete Left Behind" (aka, "You can all call yourselves 'Ironman'.")
For me, this is what it boils down to: Sharing an accomplishement - the right to use the term "Ironman" - with people who didn't do the work. I took a summer school course at Princeton. Can I call myself an Ivy League alumus? I was in the ROTC in High School. Can I get a USMC tattoo? I drove my car up Pikes Peak. Can I say I summitted a 14er? Let's think about it in marathon terms: Why not do away with the qualifying times at Boston? How do you think those who have qualified would react? Why not do away with cut-off times altogether? ("Come race New York! The city that never sleeps has a marathon clock that doesn't stop!") Why not give entrants of all events - 5k, 10k, 13.1, 26.2 - the same medal? What do you think would happen if a major metro marathon - which also hosted a 13.1 event - gave the same medal, finisher shirt, hats, etc. to participants of both events? Do you think the 26.2ers would be a bit peeved they have to share their medal - which signifies their accomplishment - with someone who did half the work?
great rant, good points,
great rant, good points, sooner
hey tri sooner. i agree
hey tri sooner. i agree with you about the medals. this thing where everyone gets a medal seems dumb to me. or they hold graduation ceremonies for completing 2nd, 3rd, or whatever random grade. there are reasons why we mark significant events, milestones in life and the more we dilute them the more we loose our way.
but, i don't think expanding the ironman brand to a larger class of races dilutes the accomplishment. you and i and everyone else who cares knows that you've got to bust your butt and be incrediably focused to complete an ironman or any 140.6 event. anyone else who boasts or is confused that their shorter event is an ironman is not worth it - just smile and go on your way.
one of my favorite triathlon moments was at an office meeting when my boss brought up to the group that i was doing a triathlon that weekend. people asked how long it was, i explained (it was an olympic), and my boss went on to say it was not that long and she could do it (if it wasn't for the swim). i just smiled and nodded and thought about how insecure she is.
for a country built on insecurity, i live in a rather insecure part of it, and anyone trying to boast about something that they are so obviously not should be ignored.
Who cares? The name is only
Who cares? The name is only important because people obsess over it. It's a self-fullfilling issue. It's like eating a pot of beans and then complaining about your flatulance. You did it to yourself.
We all come on this site and talk about how we don't even talk to non-triathletes anymore because they don't understand BUT this thread turns around and complains that if they dilute the brand then non-triathletes might confuse the meaning. "Waaaa, nobody understands what my tattoo means anymore." WTF??? Which one is it? At least admit to the fact that you want all eyes on you. I can't deal with the hypocracy.
In my opinion, the value is in the distance and not a brand. Triathletes ALL understand each distance. That's all that matters. If you aren't in the triathlon community, then you don't give a damn anyway. I'm personally not gonna pay for the brand name. I end how I began. Who cares?
TriSooner
[quote=TriSooner][quote=jonovision_man]
... except they're not calling it "Ironman". Could people claim they're doing "Ironman" when they're doing 5150?[/quote]
Other than linking to 5150 from ironman dot com and using "Ironman" six times in their press release and "Ironman" appears six times on 5150.com. Could people claim their doing an Ironman? It will probably be a little white lie by omission: "I'm doing Ironman[size=8] 5150[/size] Florida!" Mention Ironman and let the uninformed assume it's a "real" Ironman.[/quote]
But the race isn't called "Ironman 5150 Florida", it's called "Miami International Triathlon", or "St. Anthony’s Triathlon", or "5150 Clearwater". Even if you omit 5150, you are still left without a reference to Ironman.
And anyone inclined to call the "Miami International Triathlon" an Ironman is probably already doing it with whatever Sprint or try-a-tri they're doing today. You can't stop that, and I don't see how this series is going to encourage it.
Much ado about nothing.
jono
TriSooner wrote:Why not do
[quote=TriSooner]Why not do away with the qualifying times at Boston? How do you think those who have qualified would react? [/quote]
QED: The day after I qualified for Boston, I read on facebook that a peer (and 4:30+ marathoner) just registered for Boston via a charity spot. I didn't donate to his/her cause. Nor have I registered for Boston, though that is a more complicated situation.
This whole thread highlights
This whole thread highlights a big issue I have with a lot of triathletes. It really seems like many triathletes only do triathlon so that they can tell people they do triathlon. Just look at the whole M-dot tattoo culture. I can't see any other reason to get an m-dot tattoo other than to let everyone else know that you did an ironman.
I know we're all human and it's nice to have some validation for our efforts and stuff, but why do we care so much what other people think? Why does anyone care if someone else calls himself an ironman and he only did an 70.3 race? The only reason I can see it being an issue is because you're so concerned that other people know that you're an ironman, and how hard it was, and how so few people have done it, and so on. That's really the only explanation. If you really don't care about what other people think, then they could call 140.6 the "super douche" distance, and it shouldn't matter because you know what you accomplished.
The only reason that distance is called an ironman anyways is because some dudes decided to call it that. They could have just as easily done a dance marathon and called it an ironman, and then people would be freaking out because people didn't last the whole 24 hours and they're still calling themselves ironmen. It's all pretty ridiculous.
Amphibious Triton wrote:Who
[quote=Amphibious Triton]Who cares? The name is only important because people obsess over it. It's a self-fullfilling issue. It's like eating a pot of beans and then complaining about your flatulance. You did it to yourself.
We all come on this site and talk about how we don't even talk to non-triathletes anymore because they don't understand BUT this thread turns around and complains that if they dilute the brand then non-triathletes might confuse the meaning. "Waaaa, nobody understands what my tattoo means anymore." WTF??? Which one is it? At least admit to the fact that you want all eyes on you. I can't deal with the hypocracy.
In my opinion, the value is in the distance and not a brand. Triathletes ALL understand each distance. That's all that matters. If you aren't in the triathlon community, then you don't give a damn anyway. I'm personally not gonna pay for the brand name. I end how I began. Who cares?[/quote]
Couldn't have said it better myself!
olivestri wrote:i don't
[quote=olivestri]i don't think expanding the ironman brand to a larger class of races dilutes the accomplishment. you and i and everyone else who cares knows that you've got to bust your butt and be incrediably focused to complete an ironman or any 140.6 event. anyone else who boasts or is confused that their shorter event is an ironman is not worth it - just smile and go on your way.[/quote]
You're right, I need to get over it. Other people's opinions don't matter. You know what you did, yada yada yada. But it's just so fun to rant online about it.
[quote=krazyfranco]I didn't donate to his/her cause.[/quote]
That's awesome.
[quote=ChunkyB]they could call 140.6 the "super douche" distance[/quote]
That's catchy.
Fine! I'll get over it (or get over myself). Seriously, y'all are right: Ironman should mean something to you regardless of what else that brand is used for and that shouldn't change based on what other people know, say, or do about that race. I'll just sit here quietly and rest my head on my desk.
Honestly... Even if you do
Honestly... Even if you do an IM and come in @ 16:59:30 are you truly an IM? Yes technically, but I could not workout for a year and probably still complete an IM in under that time.
1:45- 2:43/ 100-
8:00 bike- 14 mph- you mah have trouble staying upright at those speed.
7:00 marathon- 16 minute miles- u can almost walk that fast.
Last month I heard a guy talking that he did a HIM. Everyone was impressed as he was about 5'7'' and weighed 350. It only took him 8 hours!
Cha-Cha-Cha-Changes! They
Cha-Cha-Cha-Changes!
They just moved the "70.3 World Championships" from Florida to Las Vegas
www.ironman.com
ChunkyB wrote:Just look at
[quote=ChunkyB]Just look at the whole M-dot tattoo culture. I can't see any other reason to get an m-dot tattoo other than to let everyone else know that you did an ironman. [/quote]
Partially. :) I'm proud I did it.
But the main reason I decided to get it: I wanted something I would have to live up to, forever. I would be embarrassed to put the weight back on and have that tattoo staring out at people.
A nice side effect I didn't think of beforehand was that it's a nice conversation starter. I've met a lot of people who just saw the tattoo and struck up a conversation with me, in the line-up at the grocery store, in the middle of a marathon, it's neat. :) Some are fellow IM'ers, some are going for it, some just want to know about it... but as someone who is normally an introvert, I get a kick out of it.
jono
jonovision_man wrote:[ But
[quote=jonovision_man][
But the main reason I decided to get it: I wanted something I would have to live up to, forever. I would be embarrassed to put the weight back on and have that tattoo staring out at people.
[/quote]
That's actually a great point. Accountability is key.
ChunkyB wrote:This whole
[quote=ChunkyB]This whole thread highlights a big issue I have with a lot of triathletes. It really seems like many triathletes only do triathlon so that they can tell people they do triathlon. Just look at the whole M-dot tattoo culture. I can't see any other reason to get an m-dot tattoo other than to let everyone else know that you did an ironman.
[/quote]
Everyone has reasons for what they do or don't do. Individuality is what makes the world diverse. People also crave exclusivity and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that.
Those that don't believe in brand exclusivity should google LaCoste and read the history of the brand from it's early years as the preppy icon (when it was Izod-LaCoste) and then what happened when they cheaped it down to where it is now and why--it's definitely making a comeback.
Here Chunky...this is why I
Here Chunky...this is why I have an IM tat...
http://antonspath.blogspot.com/search?q=Why+I+have+an+IM+tat
Anton wrote:Here
[quote=Anton]Here Chunky...this is why I have an IM tat...
http://antonspath.blogspot.com/search?q=Why+I+have+an+IM+tat[/quote]
I loved that, Anton! I think the tattoo means different things to different people, and as much as I would like A tattoo, not necessarily an m-dot, at the end of my 1st IM, I won't get one out of respect for my family who suffered in the holocaust. When my brother was a teenager, he got a tattoo of a band name on his upper arm and when my dad saw it, the look of pain and betrayal in his face was NOT one I wanted directed at me....ANYWHO...tattoos mean different things to different people- even the same red, m-dot
not sure if someone posted
not sure if someone posted this but.....can you imagine....
Dude #1: "Nice m-dot tattoo! Participate in an olympic tri did ya?"
Dude #2: :(
Anton wrote:Here
[quote=Anton]Here Chunky...this is why I have an IM tat...
http://antonspath.blogspot.com/search?q=Why+I+have+an+IM+tat[/quote]
I think you put it really well. I guess I had a pretty narrow minded view of the tattoo in particular.
And that post just reiterates why we shouldn't care about what anyone else thinks, and if they dilute the ironman brand. You know what that tattoo represents for you, and that's all that matters. Someone could come up to you and ask "so, how long was your ironman", and you could just laugh to yourself.
Wow this post really took
Wow this post really took off... I have thought about this brand quite a bit in the past, so please forgive the rather lengthy post.
In reality, the very fact that we've got some "You guys are stupid, who cares?!?" posts shows us that the name is becoming meaningless for WTC. Especially if you are relatively new to tri, the name USED to really stand for something. It became a brand all by itself because of it stood for something - and it was sort of a perfect brand - it denoted a format (swim/bike/run) and a distance (2.4/112/26.2), it denoted a choice of lifestyle that included lots of training etc, and it inspired awe because of how taxing the experience can be. It was valuable to people for their own reasons but was very easy to understand. And whether or not you personally approve of the fact that people valued the name or wanted to use the name for whatever reason is independent of the fact that lots of people did, the name had a lot of value for people personally, and it was unique in that there was room for it to make value financially.
Shortcuts and clarity matter for communication and for brands. Especially in setting goals. When Blazeman was training in the last years of his life and raising awareness for a horrible disease, he was training to run an "Ironman", not a "140.6 mile race where he swam biked and ran." It conveyed a ton of feelings to be able to say that - which could only happen because of the clear history of what it meant to hear "Ironman."
The mere fact that triathletes are now even here discussing that fact that "it's the distance" that matters, not the name "Ironman" goes to show that its losing its importance. It clearly no longer stands for something for some so clearly. In fact,even here, amongst friends, opinions are voiced showing distaste for people who DO care about the brand. That's anti-value for the brand.
Every time WTC does (or allows to happen) something that engenders further confusion in people's minds, further deterioration can occur. So while they associate the name with other distances, they keep the format association, but are letting the distance association get confused. Much of the personal value for people in the name was the distance because it was so herculean seeming to so many.
So Jarhead back to your question to me of why its terrible for the long term value of the brand - because confusion renders the brand less valuable. More supply of races lowering prices etc is all good - for the sport, and for some competitors. But its bad for the brand because for some competitors the brand really stood for something and they were willing to give personal value to the name and financial value to the name by paying more for the races. Even if WTC makes money in the short run by associating the name with things that create less clarity for the brand, it lessens their ability to keep people's personal value in the name and future money.
Humorously enough, some of Trademark law in US was based on the idea that people derive personal value by associating themselves with ideas (shortened to "brands" for easier communication) and it is a right that should be protected for them to do so.
I realize I'm wandering into dangerous territory with this - but stay with me a second, I am trying respectfully to make a comparison.
As a former Marine, I'm sure you take pride in being called one. In your summary description of yourself on this site, its the first thing you say about yourself. Those words inspire awe from me and from many. Without saying anything else, I want to thank you for what you did for me and my country.
Were you a marine because you selfishly wanted people to feel that way later? Did you write that in your description because of that? I doubt it. I think you did it because it was something you did that helps define you and and you are proud of that. As you should be (from my perspective - pacifists might not agree.) And, you didn't write you were a guy that carried a gun and protected our country. You wrote "FORMER marine." (Even showing more respect for "CURRENT marines" with the all caps I presume). Those two simple words convey a lot about you.
For some people, Ironman was an event they could do that gave them something to be proud of and help define themselves. Not just "triathlete." Not just I swim bike and run a long friggen way with a bunch of other people. "Ironman." If I can turn one of your earlier questions around: I can shoot a rifle, paint my face and do 100 pushups. Does that make me a Marine? Uh, no. Would a former or current Marine be happy to tell me that - if I ran around saying "I'm a Marine because I'm big and strong" - uh I don't know, but I like my neck unbroken so I don't think I'll try that anytime soon :)
Olive:
If you saw one of your friends and said "Hey, I just got an apple!" What would happen? If there wasn't just silence, there'd have to be a follow up question, like "An Apple what?" or maybe "A Granny Smith?" (which would be ever harder to follow up ;)) Apple was once just a computer. It was a physical machine made by Apple Computer Corporation. When the Mac came out, they purposely rebranded and changed what people associated with the word Apple.
It came to be that you said "Apple" and most people felt it meant innovation, high quality, and stylish technology products. That happened because Jobs and the rest of the mgt team at the company really understood branding and long term and short term value in names. They created a company - Apple - that makes really great products. They have been very careful with it and it has allowed them to not only survive some disasters (anyone carrying a Newton around?) but create followers of the name that value it personally, and then capitalized on it and it is now a $260 billion company.
Apple is a really great case study because they created massive personal value for people in the top brand name (as you said above "whatever, they are all apple products to me") which gives them latitude to offer lots of products in various categories of technology. "Apple" doesn't mean a really great PHONE or a really great PORTABLE MUSIC PLAYER. It means excellent tech products. There's no confusion there.
"whatever, they are all apple products to me" or not, I don't think too many people walk around saying "I have an Apple phone." They say "I have an iPhone." Apple did a beautiful job of creating the product, the marketing, supporting it from the top brand all the way down. (In fact - they whole "i" thing in and of it self is awesome marketing prowress to me..) They are also very careful about mixing Apple into the product names. Very few of their product brands have the word Apple in them.
"Ironman" HAS been the product brand much like "iPhone" is the product brand. And for many the people who aspire to run an "Ironman," whether or not they are egotistical SOBs, there used to be no confusion. If you did an Ironman, you did the full-on, harder than hell race. Taking pride in doing that can or can't be egotistical. So if Apple created the "iPhone iPad" would that make sense? No. And the more they did it the less iphone would mean because it would create confusion.
Now that WTC is letting the brand get attached to different lengths of races, they are confusing the product brands for many people. This thread proves that. To the extent they let confusion in, they lose value in the name because its less clear what it means. For some, that can be perceived as a good thing. For others, not. To the extent that confusion exists, WTC will lose the ability to clearly communicate with participants which will translate into less long term value to the name.
So now that I've potentially upset a Marine and written way too long of a post here, I'm going to change my name and move to a new state ;) If you've made it this far - thanks for reading.
You just wrote an entire
You just wrote an entire book and I still don't see anything other than another person that WANTS the brand IRONMAN to mean something. Let it go man.
I don't exactly see your point on the Marine comment. If you do a non-IRONMAN event, then you still do the EXACT SAME MILEAGE. Someone saying "I'm a Marine because I'm big and strong" means they're an idiot. I think you might be trying in vain to draw upon emotion but you're lacking substance. Also, I don't believe any logical descision should be based on emotion. No parallel to draw there in my opinion.
I follow your "Apple" theory a little closer but despite all the goodwill they've created I imagine less than 25% of the folks on this forum use an Apple BECAUSE THEY'VE FOUND CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE THE EXACT SAME OR BETTER.
I'm a free-market capitalist so I'm all for IRONMAN making as much money as they possibly can and they're entitled to it. IMHO, you need to bifurcate the differences between what drives our market economy and what is sensible. Usually they run in opposite directions.
Tell me why my kid wants 5,000 Silly Bandz. Why the heck did everybody want a Members Only jacket in the 80s? Why are so many people running in Vibrams? Did Liesure Suits just happen to look good in another decade (but looks pretty stupid in hindsight)?
Humans are generally illogical as a rule and flock together by default. IRONMAN is something a ton of people have gotten behind but the breakdown of what they offer over the alternative shows that it's illogical to pay so much more.
I respect the hell out of people that have done the distance because they put in the training for that distance, not because they paid more to go to a certain event (especially if they didn't have to qualify to get in).
Pages