I meant to get this up a long time ago.. Initially I'd thought I have this long, thoughtful bit written that was fair and objective, but it is the blogosphere we're in so I won't worry about that.
The fact is I've been complaining, ranting, etc. over the last couple of years about the strange partnerships (re Event Sponsorship) the inappropriate licensed and IM branded products that have the been the result of their marketing strategy.
Let me first get this out of the way before some comments are posted: Yes, I know IM-branded races sell out in minutes in North America, this is separate and distinct from the marketing strategy, for the most part.
At any rate, as a general rule corporate partnerships (in this case, event sponsors) and opportunities to license your brand to partners to sell product(s) should align with your brand image.
Ironman races are perceived as a premium offering (and have a premium price point), and generally deliver that level of service.
There a variety of things I rant about, here they are in no particular order:
- There isn't much consistency in who sponsors events.
Here's a quick sampling of the industry breadth represented: financial services, automobile manufacturers, Home Appliances (e.g. durable goods), and value-priced eye ware.
-The brand is using confusing labels and diluting the experience: Everyone knows what an Ironman is, folks used to call a shorter version of that a "Half Ironman".
WTC wanted to uniquely brand those shorter events so that only they could use the Ironman label. They are producing Half Ironmans as "70.3" (a full IM is 140.6 miles) events. There are so many "70.3" events on offer it removes any air of special-ness for the competitor.
-The products that are leveraging the Ironman brand under licensing deals sometimes have little relation to the sport, or are entirely inappropriate for the demographic that the brand appeals to given the premium price point/experience.
For example, if you're interested you can buy a premium priced "T2 mattress" from the Ironman store. There are also Ironman-branded value-priced sunglasses offered in the Kroger chain of stores near the checkouts and battery displays. The list of strange product offerings goes on.
Up next... some recommendations about what WTC can do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yeah, and how about all those "Escape From" triathlons? I get Escape From Alcaraz, brought to us by local swimming and Fat Ass legend "Alcatraz" Joe. (The Fat Ass being an endurance foot race - usually an ultramarathon, with no permmits, no race fees, no insurance and "no whining.")
Anyway, Escape From the Rock? Sounds like a rip-off, but OK. Escape From the Gorge? Why? The FederalEscape Triathlon, with the FederalExpress colors, is just confusing. How about the Great Lakes Escape Triathlon? Or Florida's Great Escape Triathlon? Or Escape To Miami? Doesn't anyone have any original ideas?
Here's an original name for a triathlon: Escape From the Ironman.
"Here's an original name for a triathlon: Escape From the Ironman."- That is classic!
Dont forget about all the "Onion Man Triathlon, Aluminum Man Triathlon, Pumpkin Man Triathlon, Vineman, it goes on and on...
I got a good one! "HTFUman"
It seems most triathlons either have a "man" in them, or a "Lake", or a number (70.3, Tri101)
But can you blame the race directors? They are capitalizing off of name recognition. There are soooo many different races out there to choose from.
Maybe that is a good thing though...our sport is continuing to grow.
Re- Sponsors and Advertisers----well just look at NASCAR...it isn't necessarily a bad thing if the primary sponsors product line is not directly related to "Triathlon" or "Healthy Lifestyles"
Sorry to play the Devil's Advocate...but somebody has to do it!
Been thinking about this one a bit, here's a couple reactions.
I agree that licensing of the Ironman name could use some tweaking. Yes, crappy sunglasses etc is not congruent with the IM brand. High performance, top-shelf athletic pursuit defines the IM experience and generally everyone who pursues the sport at that level, in general.
In this case (to speak to the previous comment) the difference between IM and NASCAR is that the NASCAR brand is all about the spectator and not about the "athlete" (Left turner?). I mean sure people spectate at the IMs but not for 8 hours per weekend on their couch with a 24-pack and an XXL pizza. IM should be focused on keeping their branding geared toward the people who are in the endurance tri orbit - OC athletes with time and $$ to burn on gear.
Point 2, and this is where I disagree. Being awfully peripheral to the tri scene maybe my perspective is different.
You seem to be saying that WTC should not be involved in the shorter distance (their 70.3 events.) I think the 70.3 segment is extremely important to their growth and should be focused on, rather than jettisoned. First, there are a very small number of people who are willing and able to train and compete at the IM distance. Obviously this is a monumental endeavor to undertake. So fundamentally growth at the level is limited. There is growth potential, but it is small. Second, you can't jump straight into IM's, people need to be introduced to the sport, usually progressing from sprints to olys to halfs and then fulls if they take it that far. The 70.3s allow WTC to put on really top-shelf events which introduce the future IM athletes to the brand. So the 70.3s build the base for the IM market.
The crux of your argument seemed to be that the 70.3 distance was not "extreme" enough to warrant the IM brand. This is where I may see things differently. For the bulk of people in the tri universe that distance is the highest level to which they aspire, and to me, that is still a heck of an event to compete in, if you really want to do it right. Sure some people can still fake it, but for most it is a hardcore event with months and months of focused training.
Bottom line: I think that the 70.3 distance is worthy of the IM brand and that the brand is diluted at that level. However, putting on olys would be a very very bad idea.
Looking forward to seeing what your recommendations for the future are!
Hey Jeff,
I guess I wasn't super clear about the 70.3 events from a Marcom perspective. What I was attempting to say was that I think that the sheer number of new events at this distance they've rolled to the public has somewhat dilluted brands aura of unique-ness. In the past completing an Ironman branded event (usually) meant a person had done something pretty special even if was a "70.3" because there were so few of them, and what existed at that distance was pretty challenging.
I think the "70.3" label was confusing for consumers from a branding point of view and that there was nothing wrong with calling such events "Half Ironmans" as WTC already has lock on use of the word "Ironman" for use in labeling a triathlon event.
I agree with all of your points whole-heartedly. The 70.3 experience introduces people to long-course racing who might not otherwise consider it if were only full-distance Ironman racing.
Post a Comment