Yesterday (Thursday) The World Triathlon Corporation announced the launch of the Ironman Access Program. In a nut shell the Ironman Access program gave people a week "head start," to sign up for an Ironman. The catch, it came at a cost of $1000 for a year membership and then $600 for the race entry.
If you have ever tried to sign up for an Ironman event, then you know it can be a test of patience, since most of their U.S. events sell out within 24 hours, this option did alleviate some of the stress of signing up, if you could afford it.
I received hundreds of e-mails from people who were upset and hurt. The Ironman Corporation took an immediate beating on the blogs, chat rooms and on Facebook. A lot of you out there, though this was unfair, that it took away from the "everyman feel of the sport," and was a greedy move by The World Triathlon Corporation.
The end result was a classy move by the WTC. In a video message delivered by a tired looking President Ben Fertig, they canceled the entire program and refunded the money to the athletes who jumped at the chance to get a head start on signing up for their dream at finishing an Ironman. Click here to see the video.
I think what the WTC was a great PR move, but believe it or not, I completely disagree with what they did. The thousands of you who lost your minds when this new program was announced blew a great opportunity to help the sport of triathlon grow. Hold on, before you start your "have you lost your friggin' mind e-mail," hear me out.
The Ironman is just a brand. What you did by running around like a bunch of whiny kids was put them in a bigger position of power. All of the calls, e-mails and blogs weren't making the people at the WTC mad but instead sending the message, " yes, we love you more than anything, we live for you, we love you Ironman, forget Rev3, forget Silverman, all we care about is your brand, please be nice to us. Congratulations you are a monopoly."
That's right, you blew it. Yesterday was a line in the sand, and instead of saying "enough, we refuse to cross this line," you all jumped over it like good lemmings. Instead of getting over the fact that Ironman is just a brand name, and there are dozens of other 140.6 races out there that offer more difficult courses, easier sign ups and better athlete experience, you collectively dropped your pants and took it in the back side. This was the chance to support other races. This was your chance to help triathlon grow, to realize that it's not about the brand name, but the accomplishment. You thumbed your noses at the other race directors and let them know, "you are an after thought Rev3 or Silverman, a cute diversion after we do the Ironman."
The Ironman Corporation is a business, make no mistake about that.
They are in the business of making money and growing their brand, just
like Coke, Disney and Jay Z. The difference between The Ironman and
Coke, is that The Ironman is a lifestyle brand, it effects all of us at
such a deep level, that it becomes personal, we are invested in it, it
can change your entire life. Coke, you drink it, you burp, it quenches
your thirst, the experience is over. As a lifestyle brand when they
make a change that seems unfair or greedy, it hurts, you feel betrayed
and "left out in the cold," as a lot of you have stated. It's understandable, but at the same token, get over it.
This is not an "everyman sport," as one of you said in an e-mail. This
is a rich guy, type A intense sport. The average salary of an Ironman
is $150,000 plus. Now there are a lot of you out there(including me)
who make much less than that, but this is not "everyman or woman's
sport," that would be Social Club Volleyball. If you cross the finish
line at an Ironman event you are part of the fittest 1% people in the
world. 1% out of 6,697,254,041 people in the world and the Ironman
Corporation is trying to make a profit off of that tiny margin. Yes
kids, they are a business.
This isn't new, bands have been doing
it for years. Yes, membership to the Jonas Brothers Fan Club is only
$34.99 and you get early access to pre-sale ticketing before the general
public, but then have you have to pay hundreds for the tickets,
t-shirts, parking etc. Eventually the t-shirt will fade, the music
will be dated, the Jonas Brothers will end up in re-hab and the
experience will be gone. With Ironman the memory lasts a lifetime, how
much is that worth?
You didn't have to do this. It was an
option, like the Community Slots and volunteers getting early entry.
Some people spend a lot more than $1000 to travel to a race, rent a
car, pay for a hotel and volunteer, so they get an early entry. Should
we protest that as well? Should volunteers only be local folks who
don't spend a ton to volunteer and cut to the front of the line?
I
applaud the WTC for making a smart business move, listening to their
customers and staying on top of their game. When the Ironman entries
jump to $1000 per race, remember this day and your victory over "the
man," you won the battle but lost the war.
Filed under: Events, Ironman, News, Triathlon
Tags: Ben Fertig, david wallach, Facebook, Ironman Access Program, Protests, Revolution 3 Triathlon Series, World Triathlon Corporation
Hey David, I wanna tear your head off and feed it to my dogs after reading this. Ok just kidding.
Here's the thing you are missing: they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they went too far. Do you really think WTC cares if somebody uses a slot they paid for or not? Come on. This was the best excuse they could come up with to put on film, but it makes no sense. I don't think this has any bearing on how people view Ironman, and won't affect whether or not to sign up for a WTC race. WTC is a business, and has a great model at that. They can raise entry fees to whatever they want, and people will pay it. Their races are run by volunteers. They have developed an asinine point system to hold pros captive from other races where they could stand to win more money. Their business model is knocking the cover off the ball, & like it or not, they have also done a ton to grow our sport. But I don't see any danger in calling them out when they have gone too far, as this should have no bearing on whether or not you sign up for WTC, Rev, Challenge, etc. This video shouldn't change anyone's opinion of WTC or Providence Equity. You can bitch about WTC & sign up for Rev3 at the same time, no?
Clearly, Ironman Access is/was all about the bottom line. So let's run some simple numbers.
Sure, we don't know how many people chomped at the bit for a piece of this "exclusive" pie, but for all intents and purposes lets say they sold 1,000 slots at $1,000 a piece. That's a healthy million right there.
Now...they claim that 2,500-3,000 slots go unused each year. Blow that out by $600 cost of registration, and that's a healthy $1.5 - $1.8 million a year that they make off of people who aren't even racing. [Not too shabby in a day's work. Right?]
If they're SO CONCERNED about all of these slots going unused and making sure that more athletes are able to race...the solution is simple: a wait list.
If you bail on a WTC race, while you don't get a full refund, you do get something back along the lines of $150. Which means if you have 2,500 athletes not show up to race day but take the refund, you're still pocketing $1.125 million. NOW...imagine you're able to then turn around and offer those unused spots to athletes on a wait list for the full registration price of $600...not only are you keeping the $1.125 million from your dropped out athletes, but also making an additional $1.5 million *AND* backing up your claim to wanting to make sure more people get into races.
Now...with a wait list, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to charge a nominal, non-refundable fee of $20 or so to get your name on a first-come, first-served wait list. $20 is attainable. Realistic. People would be willing to pay $20. Say each NA race gets a wait list average of 200 people (figuring events like Placid, Wisconsin and Florida will have substantially more wait listed than say, Louisville). 200 people at $20 each is only $4,000...across 9 North American races (not including Kona), you've got an additional $36,000 from a reasonable wait list fee.
I am completely for some kind of loyalty of VIP program for Ironman as long as the price tag is appropriate for the services offered. But dishing out a grand for a $24.99 magazine subscription, a membership card [not made from unicorn skin, I might add], 20% off and the opportunity to shell out $600 before anyone else just seems ridiculous. Had WTC positioned Ironman Access with a $250 price tag they wouldn't have had nearly the backlash they did.
I'd like to see them put their money where their mouth is. If they truly want to control the number of unused entries, there is a huge opportunity to implement new rules or programs to help eliminate this issue.
But clearly they're thinking with their wallets rather than outside the box with this.
1) Ironman and the WTC are a business and nothing more. There job is to maximize profits. The only time they are going to apologize for what they have done is when it hits them in the pocketbook. Two of the three Ironman's I competed in ran out of supplies (water and gatorade) and aid stations on the bike. I complained. Did it matter? No. Why because the next day they sold out Ironman in less than 10 hours.
2) Ironman athletes have cash to burn and the WTC is trying to figure out how to get more of it. That is what this little venture was about. If they were really worried about limiting the wasted slots, they could have a wait list (like mentioned above). They could only allow you to be signed up for a single Ironman race in a calendar year, but they don't. There are many other ways than charging $1000 for early sign up. The truth is that would not have solved the problem anyway. After all, if people are signing up for multiple races and wasting slots, they have money to burn and the $1000 isn't going to deter them anyway.
3) I agree the brand name is extremely strong and that a lot of the athletes are lemmings when it comes to only recognizing the brand name. I cannot talk as I only did IM-branded races. The truth is though there are other non-IM brand, but IM distance races that are just as good. Heck, if you open up your door, swim 2.4 miles in a lake, ride your bike 112 miles around town, and jog 26.2 miles in your subdivision, you are an Ironman. You don't need a brand to tell you otherwise. But, for some reason, we flock to it. Even last week, my brother told me his friend did an Ironman. I had to stop and think as there was not an Ironman. It turned out it was the Great Floridian. That is every bit an IM as a branded IM. I would encourage athletes that are still doing IM's and half IM's (which I am not) to embrace the non-branded races.
5) Will anything change? No. Why? Well, like has been said, the demand is high. I am surprised the WTC pulled back on this.
There is much more that could be said, but it will not change anything.
As a double punch to the WTC this week, they are getting blasted because the Miami 70.3 was a disaster. Seems as though they aren't doing their homework when deciding on putting their brand on a race. It's important to note that the WTC is held by a private equity firm, which I'm sure is putting a lot of pressure on the WTC to rapidly expand and increase their revenues. So it shouldn't be a surprise to see these sort of issues crop up as they are simply a company that sells triathlon racing to a wealthy demographic. Be prepared to start seeing the IM brand on more and more products and races, because if you can convince the common person that they "can be like an ironman" by just wearing a certain type of watch and eating a cereal, WTC will be stamping their logo on it to make some cash. If you want to take part in a grass roots local level triathlon race, then IM isn't for you anymore.
Wow. The tone of this post is needlessly aggressive and over the top. Do you really have to come after your readers like that? Lemmings? Lost the war?? In addition the sum of your rational is basically "this sport is for rich people so suck it up." Really? Thats your argument? I'm not an expert, but I can't think of too many businesses who could announce "We're selling access to our $500 product (but not the actual product) for $1000" and NOT have backlash.
I greatly enjoyed your summer with the Cubicle guy. GREAT, great story. I hope this particular type of attacking op-ed post won't become typical for you.