I’m not sure who is responsible for the train wreck that was yesterday’s Ironman live coverage of the Arizona Ironman.
Was it the WTC (World Triathlon Corporation) or was it newly minted (NAS) North American Sports or was it a combined effort?
But you know what? It really does not matter because it made them both look like two companies run out of the tiny basement of mom’s house by a pair of clumsy and incompetent 17-year-olds.
Ladies and gentlemen of Ironman: why bother?
I recall watching the early days of Ironmanlive.com and thinking how embarrassing for a company to put on such a lame, low-budget, and uninteresting show. But I thought to myself, “these guys are just learning and they’ll figure it out.”
Well here we are in 2007 and not only have you not figured it out, but you have actually managed to make the live coverage even more boring, amateurish and lame. I mean you could actually point the camera at a turtle walking across the lawn and it would be more interesting, with more drama, than the current coverage. At least you would know where the turtle is at any given point on the grassy course.
What the difference between any web cam in the world pointing toward any downtown in the world and the IM coverage? The downtown web cam has a more interesting camera angle and perspective. For Pete’s sake folks how hard could it be to provide some race coverage and race commentary. Here were the especially low points from my viewing of the IMAZ race feed yesterday.
a) The half hour camera shot of the blinking red stop light.
b) The crackling and popping sound that almost blew out my speakers as somebody forgot that there was also an audio feed associated with the video feed.
c) The countless hours of dead air with no commentary.
d) The hundreds of heads, arms, and hats that blocked the camera view at the finish line of the race. Yes, Mr. balding hat head dude we are trying to watch our friends and family cross the line, and only seeing the back of your sweaty head as my best friend crosses the line for the first time is somewhat of a letdown.
e) Losing the live feed every few minutes. This was especially frustrating as both the first and second place men’s finisher crossed the line completely unseen by all of us at home.
f) In the days of barn-sized High Def televisions, is it really that hard to create a live web feed that doesn’t pixilate beyond any form of human recognition when the computer’s viewer is expanded to anything beyond the size of a 39 cent postage stamp.
g) How hard would it be to actually know (let alone broadcast) the athlete’s real time race splits.
So did you know that Chicago Triathlon has (and has had for a couple of years now) an athlete tracker that will (in real time) email or text your cell phone any of the 6000 athlete’s split times as they race?
So did you that the New York City Marathon has an athlete tracker feature on their web site that will actually show you in real time the exact position of any of the forty thousand athletes on the course during the race?
So did you know that Ironman can barely (and I mean just barely) tell you in not so real time their best guesstimate of the race leader’s possible race position on the course?
So did you know that the Chicago Triathlon charges just over $100 for the race entry fee while the New York marathon charges just under $100 dollars?
So did you know (and I’m sure you did) that Ironman charges $500 for their entry fee?
Image if for that same $500.if we at home could actually know the position of our loved ones, friend and family on their historic day. How many people around the world would actually gather around the computer if they knew the exact moment when their special someone would cross the finish line?
Image how many people around the world would tune in to watch the race if they could actually see the race.
Image what sort of advertising revenue you could charge your sponsors for this sort of an audience.
Image what sort of powerful brand identity you would build?
Alas, the only thing you are currently building is a solid reputation for disappointing your viewers.
Ladies and gentlemen of Ironman: why bother?
My grandpa used to like to say that if you can’t do something right, why bother doing it at all. And that really sums up my feeling for your live race coverage.
How much time, money, and effort would it take to actually have somebody knowledgeable provide a race commentary for most of the race? They seem to be able to do it in other live and long sports competitions. Case and point just think of a golf tournaments, baseball games, the Tour de France, and 3 day cricket matches. And believe me compared to a 3 day cricked test (match); a 15-hour Ironman is so full of drama and excitement that you’ll burst a dozen windbag commentators.
My point being that if you have a microphone and completely uninteresting camera feed of a bunch of volunteers milling around the transition area…just turn on the microphone and have somebody at least describe the race at the head, middle or tail end of the field.
And here’s a concept that you might also consider: How about actually showing us the drama of the race, instead of a pointing the camera at some random spectators who (yes, I think I can actually make out a few bikes in the background) seem to be milling about waiting to cross the road?
I don’t even want to think what your sponsor at Ford, Timex, or Powerbar must think of this when they boot-up their home computers yesterday.
I’m sure the Ford people must have really loved that special moment last night when you aired the champagne medal podium finisher ceremony in front of the new Ford Edge. Oh yea now I remember, we couldn’t see the ceremony, the race winners, their medals, or even the Ford edge, because the camera was tucked safely away behind all the action…pointing at the ground behind the empty finish line.
Ladies and gentlemen of Ironman: why bother?