Fw: Re: t-and-f: Marketing - random thoughts
Here is one thing that is being done with USATF in Paris - Yesterday, Jill Geer was hooking up with athletes and making calls to their local newspapers to have the athletes talk with local sportswriters / editors. It was pretty successful in getting first hand reports back to the states. Now these aren't going to be on national wire services like the general USATF press releases, but it does hearken back to the old environmental slogan, think globally, act locally. If local / regional writers cover local / regional athletes, then there is some commection with readers and viewers, and they just might keep an eye on other aspects of the sport. I know of casual sports fans who see stories on track athletes and mention seeing them to me, so the stories are being read. These build the awareness to show track is something beyond just the Olympics. To take this a step further, athlets, clubs, and coaches have to promote the sport - and themselves - as often as opportunities permit. There is nothing wrong with submitting a ghost-written story on an athelte placing at Nationals, setting a PR, competing in a big meet. Clubs can push their accomplishments, and if other clubs comment about how this is all self serving and pompous, well, isn't this how we hear about candidates fo the Heisman trophy and other individuals whose names wouldn't otherwise go beyond a county line? The more the collective we get our sport out at every possible chance, the more attractive it is to potential sponsors - they see more coverage and stories _at all levels_ and just might think it is worth getting involved with. Most local papers (and maybe cable TV, local TV) are looking for story ideas and often for the stories to be written out for them - the media will take the path of least resistance. My old HS gets great XC and TF coverage because the coach writes a lot of stories and gives more info than is needed. Filler is always useful particularly in smaller media outlets. And the less work that has to be done, the more likely there will be coverage. The regional running magazines are a good example. Coaches and race directors might complain about how the magazines don't send reporters to cover events, but the reality is the regional mags (for example, New England Runner, which is a pretty big operation), only have a staff of 2 full timers and rely on submissions by interested parties for many stories. Now certainly there is a fine line between blatant commercialism - sending pictures with runners' singlets plastered with sponsor logos, etc - but the editors can cut to give good cover! age. Oh, and on why some of these made for TV sports are on ESPN / ESPN 2,/ other channels - they PAY FOR the coverage and time. ESPN isn't going out and covering snarfball because they think it's the next big thing; snarfball pays, gets better time the more they pay, and gets even better hours when they have sponsors like Goop willing to pay so they can get up to prime time. So I've rambled a bit. Someone take the baton and run with more comments. Steve Vaitones * John S wrote: Kurt, Good points! What I'm getting at, is let's address where we see the marketing shortfalls, and see if we can work to remedy that. I know folks at USATF have got to be interested in some motivated/talented minds who can help move the sport in the right direction. I don't want to sit here and say let's just fix it, but on the other hand, I don't want to continue to bitch and moan and do nothing. If we can recognize the problem, why can't we take steps to try and help the situation? John --- Kurt Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bottom line, I think, is that TNF is suffering because it's just not that much fun for the average American to watch. We're suffering from the fact that there isn't much interest in our sport. True enough, people aren't' very interested in track, but history suggests that it doesn't have to be that way. There may not be much interest in track now, but it didn't used to be so. Track stars used to regularly make the covers of SI; they used to be well known to general public. There used to many more track meets and they were well attended. Colleges used to run dual meets that were well attended and sometimes even televised. This wasn't all back in some dim early part of the 20th century when everything was apparently in black and white. It's within the living memory of many people on this list - including me. So why has interest in track declined? Poor marketing, dope, the dominance of the Africans, the rise of video games and the resultant slacker generation, the rise of youth soccer, the rise of NBA on TV, the NCAA scholarship limit, etc, etc. Take your pick. Probably a combination of factors in my opinion. But the question becomes: which of these factors can we exert some control over and which not? Seems to me we can control
t-and-f: Need Sparkyin NYC for therapy!!!
Does anyone know her number? Thanks, M _ Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
t-and-f: What is a professional sport
Netters: Recent stories in local NJ papers about two professional leagues have led me to this post Just what constitutes a truly professional sport? The easy way is to say that it is a sport whose athletes are paid for their services and, as it goes, I guess that is an acceptable definition. But it doesn't satisfy me. Let's start with naming the sports that are undoubtedly professional and have been for some time: baseball, pro football, pro basketball, hockey, boxing, horse racing (yes. technically, everyone but the athlete gets paid here, but there is little doubt that it qualifies anyway) What do these sports have in common? Each and every one is basically independent of outdoor sources of money., Yes, I know that TV is a principal contributor these days, but these sports (as well as the amateur endeavors of college football and basketball) get those huge contracts because of their innate popularity with the sporting public and, if somehow the TV money diasppeared (it won't) they would still be around, even if the salaries might have to revert to the sensible levels (adjusted for inflation) of the pre-TV days. The recent stories I alluded to were about two women's leagues: soccer and basketball. The women's soccer league, to no one's surprise, is in financial trouble. Its attendance figures continue to drop; it used up its seed money, projected to last four or five years, in the very first year. And, or course, the men;s league isn;t that much better off. The WNBA exists solely on the subsidy ($12 Million a year) provided by the NBA. That, in itself, takes care of the payrolls of all of the member teams. Reported attendance figures are much higher than the soccer league, but are themselves questionable. Most major arenas have season packages which are gobbled up by corporations and these seats are considered sold for all event even if they are ampty. And, of course, the ticket price for the WNBA does not begin to compare with the extortionist figures charged for prime tickets by both the NBA and NHL. So where does that leave track and field. In my view, the American pro scene is little else than an advertising vehicle for Nike (principally) and other shoe companies, And the odious appearance fee system has either resulted in the elimination of some meets or in the scramble for outside sposnsorship (which can, and does, evaporate so quickly) to put the athletes on the track. Anyone who has lived through the truly golden age of track and fiueld in this country---which ended a generation or more ago---is aware that things are not what they used to be (and, unfortunately, never will be again). We still have high school and college track to enjoy, but they, by law, cannot be considered professional.. The European scene is, of course, something else again/ But, even there, meet promoters in recent years have voiced concerns about the increasing demands for the upfront money and there, too, some meets have disappeared. However, the profesional side flourishes there from simple lack of competition and benefits from ample media coverage which has simply disappeared in our country. )As much as 90 percent of the words that appeared in NJ papers on our sport this past year were strictly concerned with the high school scene; even our colleges get short shrift, particularly from the state's largest circulation newspaper. Ed Grant.
Re: t-and-f: Kenyan Drug Scandal
John, She actually has to run NYC or Boston, especially Boston. If/when this happens - people will tune in. It's great that Deena ran the AR in London, but imagine if she had done it at Boston and won the damn race. It would have been on the cover of most major papers, especially on the East Coast AND if she was scheduled to defend her ttle, that would be a very big deal. OK, another example of this idea. They have built an entire cable television network's month of programming around a single US endurance athlete in a sport with limited initial fan base in the US. Lance Armstrong is the OLN Network for the month of July and it's their best month of programming. Why do American's watch? Because he's an American and he wins. Get us an athlete who can win the Pre mile or who can win Boston and people in this country will watch. Until then, nobody will give a rats about track in this country except for the hardcores like us. There are 3 events in track that Americans understand. The 100, the mile and the marathon. Right now if Marion isn't on TV, nobody cares. When was track a player on TV most recently? It was the early 80's when we had guys like Steve Scott/Mary Decker getting medals in the 1500, Al and Joanie in Boston/NYC AND King Carl in the 100. People in this country like to watch athletes on TV who can win the race, who they can root for. I'll admit it, the only reason I watched the Tour was to root for Armstrong, the only reason I watch MLB is to see if Barry can hit a homer, the reason I watch the NFL is when Garcia is throwing for the Niners and the reason I did not watch the PGA last weekend? I didn't know anyone in the final pairing. I gotta have someone to root for who will win. Stupid reason I know, but that's just me and I suspect most other sports fans in this country. Joe John Schiefer wrote: Joe, Good points! However, with respect to below: You state: Ican tell you right now if we had a young Joanie or Alberto with a legit shot at winning Boston or NYC, viewership would be through the roof. If we had a US athlete with solid chance of winning We do! Her name is Deena Drossin. Schiefer --- Joe Rubio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, It's my opinion that televised sports are by and large athlete driven in terms of viewership and popularity. American audiences tune in when they know the athlete(s) AND that athlete has a shot at winning. Until we actually have a US athlete in the mix in an international caliber mile/1500 or marathon, you won't get very many US people interested in track on TV. I can tell you right now if we had a young Joanie or Alberto with a legit shot at winning Boston or NYC, viewership would be through the roof. If we had a US athlete with solid chance of winning a golden league 1500, particularly in the men's events where we've been dry for so long, people would tune in. I'm a track nut and I grow tired of watching meets where I have nobody to root for or against. I want a US kid breathing down El G's neck with 300 to go in the Pre mile. I don't care if he win's, I just want to have someone to yell at the TV screen for. The idea he might win is good enough for me cause I like to root for underdogs. Right now, I have nobody to yell for and that's boring to me. What is the PBA and the professional poker tour of all things doing? They are making personalities in their sport so the audience has something to hang their hats on. Unfortunately in track and field, the events most US people want to hang their collective hats on are the ones we need the greatest improvement in - namely the mile and the marathon. Look what happened after Webb broke Ryun's record. The only non-Olympic level track event I am aware of to interupt ESPN for a live feed was when Webb ran the USATF 1500 final in Eugene. Why? Because here was the next great hope for American miling and the US public is hungry for success in this event. ESPN didn't do the live feed to help the sport. They did the live feed because there was interest in this kid and that event. Heck, my uncles and cousins all knows who Webb is and they know nothing about track. The marathon is another example. Even Jerry Seinfeld had an episode on the NYC marathon. Track and the marathon part of our sports culture, we just need athletes to be competitive in them to draw fans. There are an enormous number of people in this country who would tune into the Pre meet or Boston coverage or any number of televised meets IF and only IF we had American athletes who could contend for the win. Bottomline, we need the athletes to win some big time mile races and some big time marathons to develop a following. Do this and there won't be a need for USATF's marketing efforts because people will come - a lot of them. Until this happens though, viewers will continue to ignore our efforts as a sport no matter what we do to attract them.
Re: t-and-f: What is a professional sport
Interesting comments by Ed Grant. I'll add a couple of additional points: 1.While the golden age of track field (presumably you mean sometime between 1950 and 1975) may have been great for fans (and I have no idea since it wasn't around), it was terrible for the athletes. Both then and now, only the very few top athletes made any money (even when they were amateurs), and at least now they are - for the most part - free of the controlling old boys network that was the AAU. 2.The answer, it would seem, is to separate the amateurs from the pros. All the really professional sports (and you left out the one most applicable to track - golf) have their amateur programs separate from their professional programs. I have said before that the PGA and USGA are who we want to be modelling ourselves after. We will never have the corporate support that they have, but that doesn't mean there isn't much to be learned from their model. A pro track league with rules and responsibilities for members is what we should be striving for. Yes, I know it's been tried and failed. One of the big reasons was that athletes were giving up all the major competitions in excahnge for it, and they were making less money in many cases than the amateurs. And the devastating battles between the AAU and the NCAA along with the nearly decade-long congressional interest of the time definitely didn't help. Maybe a pro track league won't work. But I tend to think that with some radical format changes (maybe 8-10 events total) and realistic initial financial goals, a well thought out plan might develop into something that would work. My main point - which largely agrees with what Ed Grant said - is that we are currently using a model for pro track that no other sport that is remotely professional uses. We are perhaps somewhat close to tennis, but they aren't doing as well now, and they at least have a meaningful tour. Purely for amusement purposes, I'll throw out there that my prospective pro track league would have only the following events: 100m,400m,Mile,110H,5000m(with primes to inject excitement),javelin,pole vault,long jump, and maybe the shot. I would change the format of the three horizontal events to weed out competitors after every round, adding excitement. And the pole vault would definitely have to have some format changes to keep it manageable. At first, the whole thing would be men only (another feature of nearly every pro sport). Most importantly, teams would be featured heavily. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: Ed Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: track net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 12:01 AM Subject: t-and-f: What is a professional sport Netters: Recent stories in local NJ papers about two professional leagues have led me to this post Just what constitutes a truly professional sport? The easy way is to say that it is a sport whose athletes are paid for their services and, as it goes, I guess that is an acceptable definition. But it doesn't satisfy me. Let's start with naming the sports that are undoubtedly professional and have been for some time: baseball, pro football, pro basketball, hockey, boxing, horse racing (yes. technically, everyone but the athlete gets paid here, but there is little doubt that it qualifies anyway) What do these sports have in common? Each and every one is basically independent of outdoor sources of money., Yes, I know that TV is a principal contributor these days, but these sports (as well as the amateur endeavors of college football and basketball) get those huge contracts because of their innate popularity with the sporting public and, if somehow the TV money diasppeared (it won't) they would still be around, even if the salaries might have to revert to the sensible levels (adjusted for inflation) of the pre-TV days. The recent stories I alluded to were about two women's leagues: soccer and basketball. The women's soccer league, to no one's surprise, is in financial trouble. Its attendance figures continue to drop; it used up its seed money, projected to last four or five years, in the very first year. And, or course, the men;s league isn;t that much better off. The WNBA exists solely on the subsidy ($12 Million a year) provided by the NBA. That, in itself, takes care of the payrolls of all of the member teams. Reported attendance figures are much higher than the soccer league, but are themselves questionable. Most major arenas have season packages which are gobbled up by corporations and these seats are considered sold for all event even if they are ampty. And, of course, the ticket price for the WNBA does not begin to compare with the extortionist figures charged for prime tickets by both the NBA and NHL. So where does that leave track and field. In my view, the American pro scene is little else than an advertising vehicle for Nike
t-and-f: Ben on the list
It asks whether Johnson was the exception or the rule in a sport that at the very least turned a blind eye to steroid use, Craw said. It will also re-examine the investigation of Johnson's drug use and how his career was destroyed. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030822.wtvto21/BNStory/Sports/ Regards, Martin
t-and-f: Often-overlooked hurdler to carry U.S. flag
Often-overlooked hurdler to carry U.S. flag By BOB BAUM .c The Associated Press SAINT-DENIS, France (AP) - No U.S. athlete is a bigger favorite to win his event at the World Championships than Allen Johnson in the 110-meter hurdles. He is the runaway choice to win his fourth world championship, something no other hurdler has accomplished. The gold medalist at the 1996 Olympics, he will carry the U.S. flag in the opening ceremony Saturday. Yet when a handful of U.S. athletes appeared at a news conference on Friday, only a few reporters bothered to talk to Johnson. The rest crowded around Tim Montgomery, Stacy Dragila and Tyree Washington. That has been Johnson's lot - ignored or taken for granted. ``I can't help but feel that sometimes,'' he said. ``I feel like I've accomplished a lot in my career, but at the same time I feel that I get overlooked. After it's happened for so many years I can't help but feel a little bit cheated at times.'' Johnson, 32, has four of the top 10 times in his event. Twice in 1996 he came within a hundredth of a second of Colin Jackson's world record of 12.92 seconds. Johnson is the only hurdler to break 13 seconds this year. He ran 12.97 July 4 on the same Stade de France track where the worlds are being held. It's a resume that deserves attention. ``I can't do anything about it. I can just be myself,'' Johnson said. ``All I can do is keep winning and maybe one day I'll get a little more attention than I've gotten.'' He said he was surprised when his U.S. teammates chose him to carry the flag. ``It's an honor for them to think enough of me to want me to hold the flag of the United States of America and represent our team,'' Johnson said. Johnson believes he has many more races ahead of him. ``My goal is to go through at least 2008,'' he said. ``I still have a lot of fun. I have just as much fun as I did my first season over here. I'll probably be one of those athletes that you look up and say `He should have retired two years ago,' and I'll still be running.'' Craig Masback, head of USA Track Field, said that Johnson's great career has been overshadowed by others. ``He can't help but be one of the greatest hurdlers of all time just by the virtue of multiple world championships and an Olympic championship,'' Masback said. ``However, he never had a signature star to match up against him in the way that (Renaldo) Nehemiah had (Greg) Foster. He also competed at a time there was another Johnson.'' With Michael Johnson setting world records in the 200 and 400 meters, Allen Johnson was relegated to a paragraph here and there. ``It drives my parents crazy. They're always saying `Why didn't they say more about you?' and I say, `I don't know.''' Johnson said the hurdles were the last event he thought he'd run when he was on the high school track team at age 15. ``A friend and myself were watching the shuttle hurdle relay. There were guys falling all over the place,'' Johnson said. ``We were sitting there laughing at people. We were both saying `Man, those guys are crazy.' I said, `Yeah man, you would never catch me running the hurdles. That's crazy.''' The following Monday, his coach said, ``You have long legs. I'm going to put you in the hurdles,'' Johnson recalled. He's been a hurdler ever since, except when the U.S. team needed him to do something else. ``I remember when the World Championships were held, we needed somebody to run a round of the 4x400 (relay) because all our guys were sore and hurt,'' Masback said. ``He stepped up and ran a round to get us to the final to win the gold medal. He's done the same in the 4X100. There is no one who has been more supportive of the `team' than Allen Johnson has.'' Johnson believes he can run 12.8 or 12.7 under ideal circumstances. That finally would get this low-key personality some high-profile headlines. ``I don't have a `hook,''' Johnson said. ``I just win.'' 08/22/03 15:49 EDT Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
t-and-f: Race Walk declared safe in OG
WALK ON:@ Race walking remains safe, for now. The event has been marred by controversy, with competitors often disqualified for lifting both feet off the ground at the same time, and has been singled out by the IOC for possible elimination from future games. But IAAF president Lamine Diack said Friday the federation had addressed some of the problems and made improvements to the event. IOC president Jacques Rogge said the walking events would definitely remain on the program for the Athens Olympics. Rogge said all sports and events would be reviewed after Athens, with the IOC deciding in 2005 whether to make any changes for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Excerpted from: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/gen/wire?messageId=21521428
[no subject]
Found the following site while surfing the net today. Looks like the WC's will be broadcast on the net. http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V3/L0/home_Lng0.shtml Coach David Hill Central Texas Elite Track Club http://www.centexelitetrackclub.org/ 512-833-3070 (Pager) Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
