The men would've gone to Geens/Sperl/Riele if they all accepted. Skipper next up. Knibb had to validate but I assume she doesn't still take up a slot? It would then go to Langridge/Curran/Becharas

LOL I love you guys!

I had a great day until about mile 3 on the run then the wheels feel off, been dealing with a little injury, I think I hurt my hamstring lateral collateral ligament a few weeks ago.. was unable to run the final week.

All the jokes about Dede crack me up. It's like shes trying to interject every sound byte from the NBC broadcast days.

Would I really have to pay Outside TV to watch the replay? Or is there another way to watch the replay?
Damn you Messick for f**king everything up!

The only way if you're late to the party (and failed to prioritise watching live) is the Outside+ way.
All the IM Pro Series races in 2024 are going to be broadcast that/this way (or outside NA on the IM Pro Series app (with no replay)) so maybe a sub would be worth your money.
Tracker is free (and ad free too).

What a effing joke... Great way to promote a sport, let make it as difficult as possible for people to watch. Sure some uber fans will pay up, but how many newbies or even regulars are going to pay a subscription to watch a race. Just stupid stupid stupid.

I don't think you realize how much it costs to produce and broadcast an event, most especially events that are over miles and miles of road and not in some cute 100yd stadium or court. That we even get "free" (live) coverage should be commended, not shitted on that you can't get it on demand.

Triathlon played out over 4-10 hours is a boring ass sport that is going to draw no coverage. I did some quick google searches. US based popular sports like PGA Golf, NFL have over 30 sponsors that pay BIG bucks to support broadcasts. I think in the race day thread it was counted, 5 brands did advertising for this race. Like it's a no win situation for races that do LC racing. There are people that think ~$40 to view 20 races a year is "too much" for ITU coverage. Like, seriously?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I even wish we gotten more races, I would happily pay a yearly subscription if it meant I could watch all the 70.3 Pro races, even with the sub-par broadcast where Deedee can't distinguish between a "45" and a "49". Or where she thinks a male triathlete was Fanella Langridge.

The world isn't the US... The rest of the world might not want to wake up at 1am to watch the free live coverage.

And while we are talking numbers the amount they would get from subscribers would be 2 tenths of fark all. So using random numbers, if it costs $1M to televise the race is it really worth it alienating your audience for the sake of $20k in subscriber revenue...

I'm sure the sponsors would rather it like last year where thousands could watch on YouTube rather than hundreds on a subscription service...

And a whole bunch of the world loved to tune in in the middle of a Saturday afternoon. So if your going to talk about the world, it's a WHOLE big world out there that could tune in for "free" coverage at a decent hour.

And again the biggest issue- the subscription costs isn't for triathlon ($90/year). It's for the entire Outside channel. So your paying for all those outdoor shows and reality shows. Your not just paying for 20 triathlon races; which could be more affordable if they ever went for an LC Triathlon Live coverage. Your still going to pay $60 for that type of coverage, which you guys would still bitch about.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

As I watched yesterday I got bummed out that the T100 has 0 chance of making it because this sport is boring as all hell to 99% of people. I love it as does everyone here, but they are trying to bring this to the masses and that just isn’t going to happen.

I'm as die-hard a triathlon fan as there is, and I won't be watching the Ironman Pro Series this year under those circumstances. And yes, like LastLap I'm in Australia. Good thing I'll still have some great (better actually) triathlon to watch in the T100, World Triathlon and SuperTri.

For sure, it'll die whenever the investors get tired of investing, and then we'll throw our hat fully into super sprint triathalons. That's the only broadcastable event, which is funny because the biggest hater of that style is probaly the people who do triathlon....lol. We love to eat our own essentially.

There is some ncaa movement to potentially go with an arena games setup where you swim in a pool and bike/run in a parking lot setup. Sorta an hybrid of the Lievin indoor WC that just happened in France last weekend. Essentially heat/finals so that you can then bike in a short area that doesn't require miles of roads. That is what will be marketable. This stuff where you watch people do 40 miles of TT'ing with no action, that's never going to make it. No matter how much investment money they throw at it.

Which is why I would favor going to a T50 type of race distance. Essentially get done with biking inside of 75 mins and run for ~45 mins. The bike on the T100 is just too long, but for the IM branded races, the race broadcast has never been an priority nor ever will be. IM is 1st and foremost an race production company....FULL STOP. 2nd-12th on that list is...IM = race production company. Then the pro race series, pro race broadcast is well down. But again that's ok. IM know's it's lane basically. They aren't going to do anything too risky to bankrupt themselves, because again IM = race production company.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

And I'll circle back to my original point-how many people do you think will sign up for Outside watch? maybe a few hundred...wow what an ingenious business model for the sake of around $30K....brilliant.

But again I want to point out- your signing up for the entire package. There is no "triathlon only" package for $60 (like there is with Triathlon Live). So it's either get the free version or pay the $90 that includes their entire Outside content. I agree with you, no one is going to sign up for that package to watch 20 triathlon races. But again there is a free version and a paid version. What solution are you actually suggesting?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

The solution is simple-go back to last year where it was all available on youtube...

And I'll go back to my original response- Broadcasting 20 events which is what was said they were going to do (I guess US coverage will have certain broadcast, and other events will have specific vendor broadcast outside of US), is costly.

I don't know how many events were broadcast last year for "free". I know they had several within the US that was broadcast free, don't know about replayability.

So you can shit on them for not making it free to replay, but all they basically did was likely help offset the costs.

It's a 1st world triathlon problem. Everyone wants everything free, and if we don't get it free, your an asshole for not providing it free. It's absolutely crazy. But again I think if they had a LC tri package for $60, you guys would still bitch (and not want to pay it). Similiar to what ITU does with their what ~$45 annual price tag (which is the best value in the sport in many people's opinion for what you get, 20 races among the top 2 divisions in ITU).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

FFS... It's a stupid argument, $30k in revenue from subscriptions is chicken feed, it's literally nothing.

If you can't see that it would be better for them to absorb that cost to promote the sport and their brand then I give up..

We have had a huge race on the weekend with a win from one of the most popular athletes of all time and no one can even watch it, get excited about it and motivated to enter a race.

But hey...at least made $400 from Outside watch....

So I'm 100% with it you that this subscrition pathway they did this year is going to result in no one signing up for it. But I'm just willing to say, that the partnership (atleast within the US with Outside) likely is what is allowing that to be "free" for the live coverage of all these events. It's only a matter of time when this type of coverage will be subscription based for any coverage- see Triathlon Live for ITU.

Again I'll point out, when you talk about IM just eating the costs. Dude they can't do that, lol when you are talking about likely doubling the inventory of races they are now broadcasting. They don't have a unlimited supply of money and investors. They are a race producction companay full stop. That's how they make their bread and butter. These free telecasts aren't going to suddenly be the driver that gets people interested in IM races. Having really happy customers continue to fill up their events is what will keep them in business. So they are simply covering costs. It is a stupid conversation to have if you can't accept/understand that. The broadcast isn't their priority and never will be when you are an race production company first and foremost that caters to AG athletes. Like it's not complicated.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Now I know you are trolling....if $30K is going to break the bank of IM then they might as well shut up shop now...

What number is $30k?

Are you making up that number or do you know the financial package partnership here?


Trolling? Far from trolling. Your lack of economic understanding is showing through far more than me being a troll. But carry on. You suggesting IM just "eat the costs", is not going to happen. IM can't afford to behave in that type of manner. They ain't going to run themselves out of business on a pro broadcast product. They know what pays the bills. It's not this pro series or broadcast, thus they can't just give it out for free all the time anymore. It's not really that complicated.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You by your own admission have stated next to no one will sign up for outside watch. As a rough estimation Id be surprised if they get more than $30K worth of revenue from subscribers, but hey lets even triple that and call it $90K.

If you are wanting to constantly infer superior financial knowledge and economic understanding I have a 5 year old here who understands that if a company the size of IM can't absorb $90K without risking bankruptcy then they might as well close up shop. $30k, $90K these days is chicken feed. It's the price of a handful of new bikes on the racks. And you with all your superior economic understanding seem to think its sheep stations lol.

All publicity is good publicity. Races provide excitement, inspiration and motivation, they get people keen and eager to train and enter races. Yesterday's race was a huge marketing opportunity that will be wasted.

If a race happens but no one can see it did it ever really happen....

Yes I think not many people will sign. Psst that is why it’s no longer free outside of the free coverage. You’re not going to NOT sign up for outside channel and still get to watch their coverage free for eternity for only this event.

Again when you likely are doubling or tripling your broadcast, someone is footing the bill.

So if you’re saying you’ll only watch this 1 outside broadcast product then why continue to give it to you for free for eternity?

To grow the sport, lol?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You deleted your last response but anyways.. So no one is going to pay to watch now and yet you think there will be a influx of people who will somehow pay to watch in the future?

Your lack of logic is bewildering. If you are only going to get loose change in revenue how is this covering broadcast expenses? With less eyeballs where is my incentive as a sponsor to spend money on advertising if no one is going to see it?? It's a downward spiral.

On the flip side (my side) by absorbing the costs and making it accessible for all it has the opposite effect. Sponsors are happy with increased coverage, athletes and casual observes all are happy for obvious reasons. It promotes and grows the sport.

The delta is revenue from subscriptions, unless you can some how show me this amount is in any way material then your whole argument is bunk. If I had an executive try and explain to me that for the sake of $30-90k we are going to restrict the viewership to hundreds of people who have subscribed I'd sack them in a heartbeat.

Now excuse me I have to go argue with someone that water is wet.

Yes I think more people will pay for an specific triathlon coverage at a more affordable price point similiar to triathlon live (~$45/year). But again the $90 price point for you to watch the coverage isn't paying just for triathlon on demand. Your getting their entire inventory, thus it's more expensive than just triathlon coverage. ITU had 315k subscribers either in annual or monthly. Yes I think you could get 1/6th or 1/8th of that at $50 a pop and help offset some of the 7 figure costs it likely has to broadcast 20 events.

It's covering expenses because Outside likely said as part of the finanical agreement- we will give you X money to be broadcast partner in US in exchange, we need specific terms of the agreement. Thus no longer is the tri content free for eternity. If you want to watch it free, you watch it live. If you don't, you have to pay for our service. Again that's likely how they are able to support doubling their race broadcast schedule.

I don't think the broadcast lost tons of sponsors. They've never had a ton of sponsors to begin with, so your point on happy sponsors is irrelevant. They had 5 sponsors that we counted during the broadcast.

Your stuck on subscribers.....subscribers isn't what is going to pay IM. It's the financial agreement Outside is willing to pay them to be the exclusive broadcast partner, so again I don't really think you understand it completely. Your caught up on the wrong thing. Outside is the one that is likely going to lose out on likely not gaining a ton of new subscribers from this financial deal. They are the ones that are likely to only gain $30k-$90k that we theorized. And I'm guessing the contract was easily 6 figures between Outside and IM, there is a reason why they were able to afford to double their broadcast inventory. It would take 333 people to want to buy Outside subscription for them to make $30k, and then $90k they would only need 1k people. So for Outside with their subscritipn being $90, you don't need a ton of people to subscribe to it, so in that aspect it likely works for them as well. They don't need a ton of subscribers from this (which is the point we agree upon)

So your point about sacking the person- guess what that person is going to be at Outside, not at IM. Outside has paid IM to be the exclusive partner for this series. IM has it's money from that agreement. The subscribers money will then go to Outside. So I think your stuck on the wrong information. IM has made an agreement that has Outside paying them to be the broadcast partner. I certainly don't think it covers all the expenses of it, but it certainly covers way more than $90k. IM wouldn't be broadcasting their races if it wasn't. They'd simply make you follow on the tracker.

Let's just say it's a $1mi contract between Outside and IM. Outside would need ~11k subscribers to "break even" on the deal. If it was $500k, they would need ~6.5k subscribers from the deal. So it's not really like they need a ton of subscribers to make it work for them either.

So if your going to call me a troll, or come with witty comebacks, atleast make sure you understand what you are arguing for and against. It's ok to not understand the fiances of it, but your "should be free" aint how the world worlks. And again IM has already gotten paid by Outside so they can be the broadcast partner. That's how contracts work. Pick any sport you want, and whoever broadcasts it, they paid said sport to broadcast it. Subscribers $$ is an Outside problem, not IM.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I was on my trainer toggling between Oceanside and Paris Roubaix Femmes. I left the audio on at Paris Roubaix Femmes at all times (even if I flipped over to Oceanside to see what was going on), but in reality, at Oceanside paint was drying for 4 hrs or so. On the way to Roubaix there was continuous action and we ended up with a 5 woman sprint at the final stretch on the velodrome like a pure track cycling race. That was exciting for the 3 hrs or so I had the women's Paris Roubaix on. Then I went for a run and came back and nothing changed at Oceanside from before the run. In fairness today at the men's Paris Roubaix, I stopped watching when Van Der Pole took off and built up a 2 min lead on the rest of the pack. I was on a schedule and wanted to ride outdoors, but that race too was decided with 60km of riding left, not totally unlike the run course of a triathlon.

There is always an element of surprise if a triathlete cramps late, but that's about it. Same when a really strong rider is on a long solo break and no one wants to cooperate (or can't) to chase him down. At least cycling has an element of suspense at all times. This is what long course tri lack. There is no element of suspense.....even in baseball you can be down 6-1 in the 9th inning and there is still a game and you never know what happens. For long course tri, there is too much certainty for it to be interesting for the masses.

I think this is the challenge for T100. For Ironman, they have people like us who watch but largely their customers are those of us who pay entry fees. T100 seems to want to make this is a media package, and I can't see anyone but triathletes caring.