Triathlon too boring for TV?
A friend of mine likes rhubarb. Can't get enough of the stuff. He is always on about this. He eats it when he can and always makes sure that he is never a few days gone before he starts banging on about his favorite thing. Me, I can't stand the stuff. It's a weed and does nothing for me. And now this is where we make the jump, just because you love something doesn't mean everyone else will.
The idea of putting an Ironman race or a triathlon on mainstream TV is fraught because it is such a niche sport. With ratings and advertisers howling for large numbers just because a small group of hardcore supporters love it rhubarb style, not everyone will.
The story of the development of ITU racing is pretty well known. To get it's Olympic berth it needed to be done in under 2 hours. Hence the distances and the package. But with Ironman it's another story. If you want to watch the race 3 months after it has happened then that is easy and the WTC have a great knack for producing Emmy award winning Ironman TV thanks to a lot of practice and great eye from a guy called Peter Henning who directs it all.
But the live bradcast is something else and outside of the online world not done a heck of a lot. So how do you broadcast it live? Is it to boring?
The quick answer is yes but then think about what else is on. The Tour de France was beamed to millions on a flat stage where nothing much happens for days. A neat point made by one of our readers. Golf for some is another pastime that grabs plenty of air but for some it's about as interesting as watching the grass grow beneath the golfers feet. Another rhubarb scenario. So you would think Ironman has a point. We thought about it and came up with a few points we thought would help in the broadcasting of this great sport.
- Less in the swim is best - Doesn't need to be a huge feature. Swinging arms are boring. You can come back to the end of the swim.
- Packages through out the coverage. A little pre shooting of the stories or the features breaks this up.
- Looking at the race in stages. It doesn't need to be a full broadcast. Coming back to the race as it unfolds is not a bad way to break up an 8+ hour event. The only problem is how to keep your audience coming back.
- Match the balance between age grouper and professional. That's the hard part.
There is no reason why Ironman cannot follow the path of the ITU and get itself on the small screen.
If you have any suggestions on this let us know!
Back
Comments (11)
by itu_fan, 02 August 2010You all make great points about both itu racing and ironman racing. however, simple fact is, ironman is such a niche sport it wont take off on a commercial network, especially age grouper coverage – do you seriously believe the general public would want to see Bob the age grouper on TV? No chance in hell. Sure triathlon fans would love it – but i hate to burst the bubble, but there's very few of us in the broader scheme of things. I like the point raised about the pro fields at IM races. hardly ever do you get a really deep field outside Kona. I think that it's possible to do broken up coverage of Kona similar to the way Golf is presented – but only at events such as Kona and Clearwater – outside those two, the PRO fields aren't big enough. The Olympics gave ITU racing it's break, and it's a made for TV event – for me personally it's a far superior tv sport than IM.
by Craving races, 01 August 2010FOTB, don't keep us in suspense...does it concern new race offerings?
by firstoffthebike's Phil Wrochna , 30 July 2010I've heard of about 3-4 potential new events to hit our calendars.
I live up the top end and word is filtering out from a council source a big new winter event is about to be launched....
Awsome to see so many comments guys.. you will need to keep your powder dry on some of this.. big news in the ether that we will let you know about asap!
by not itu fan, 29 July 2010Stay tuned for our reality tri show article next week...
...itu fan...before you start looking over the fence mate...no one in itu is running 29 mins off the bike. The blokes don't even run 29 fresh...unless the guy that measured last year's 10km race at the Melb Marathon is marking them out...I've never seen an accurate itu 10k!
by beav, 29 July 2010ITU aint bad to watch...but kona coverage kicks its arse
i reckon the nbc package is very ordinary. in 2007 we saw craig alexander run for about 10secs of the coverage. he came 2nd. 08+09 not much better.maybe a minute of him running.
by dan , 29 July 2010bring back the days of the coverage on ch9's wide world of sports. it took all day to watch. 1-5pm. you could set up your home trainer for a full arvo of non stop sports,mostly ironman. and music,get rid of the music and slow moe's. go back to putting the microphone on the feet so you can hear the feet slapping on the ground.89 covergae is the greatest. listening to dave scott, calling out, exceed, i want exceed,catch me,then you just hear the pounding of the feet.could almost smell the sweat.that coverage is what got thousands of people into this sport.including many of the now greats. thats how it is done. other succesful tv stint was when it was combined with surf ironman.again a full arvo of great sports to watch. want to make ironman great for tv, then go back and revisit what they did in 89. yes the race was great,but the coverage made it even greater.
you guys make some great points to what is or isnt needed for a live race. age group stuff tho? i'd say save that for the NBC broadcast...
by Brett, 29 July 2010and to respond to itu_fan (and i qualify myself as a fan of ITU and ironman) false race distances are the bane of EVERY type of triathlon, be it drafting or non-drafting. you think those run courses are actually 10k? yeah right. from cleveland in 98(cant remember what year) where everyone was supposedly running 28:something off the bike, to Hamburg 2009/2010 which is absurd and is KNOWN to be short even now after they intentionally added cones at the beer turnaround in order to try to make it longer. the false race distance is NOT the main point that is keeping Ironman off TV, obviously it hasnt stopped ITU. drafting vs. non-drafting is a whole other issue that doesnt really have anything to do with whether or not it gets on TV. i think the TIMEFRAME, like you correctly said, is the main point. a hotly contested Escape from Alcatraz or Chicago (both non drafting) could be packaged under 2 hours and be exciting. just cuz 85% of the field is wheel sucking makes it born for tv.
honestly i think the ironman pro field needs to be very very strong in order for an ironman to get on tv. and it might be strong enough in hawaii or roth or frankfurt, but everywhere else? no way. not exciting enough when there are 10 "pros" and only one can really win it.
I like brett's point of trying to get a 70.3 race on tv.
just look at what most TV companies did to lots of boring sports.
baseball? throw a TON of cameras at it, and have tons of commercial breaks.
golf? background stories, pro rivalries, ONE BIG SUPERSTAR THAT EVERYONE (used to) LOVE
cycling? in the U.S. you could say the superstar thing (lance) had something to do with it. around the world? look at the coverage on any channel, they break for commercial about every 5 or 10 minutes and here in the u.s. on versus, they chop it up a bit and make the stage much shorter. i think that would be a way to get an Ironman on tv. not "live" but almost. so after every commercial break you fast forward the race a bit and instead of waiting 4.5 hours for the bike ride you see it in 1 or 2.
the nbc coverage is heavily slanted to the human interest story, okay, maybe that is the point of it, i get that. i dont know about you, i'm kind of tired of hearing about the millionth person who has had a hardship and decides to flog themselves over swimbikerun as a challenge. certainly that's great but THEY ARE MISSING THE RACE. nbc knows who pays the money, so they are ok with using the age group stories instead of the race storylines, revolving around the pros. if it was on live, or semi-live, it should be different. swap out the human interest stories (or some of them) and instead go into how pro's raced this year, who did what to who, etc etc. They would have PLEEEENnnnty of time to go into all of those interesting storylines between the professionals. it would be great. they could seemingly have tons of content to go to while the race is (or isn't) shaping up.
Before we start trying to get an Ironman on TV, perhaps we should start by getting a 70.3 event on TV and in a position where people actively look forward to watching it. And not just tri people, but the general public. I think trying to go from zero or ITU TV to the full ironman is just too much and it just won't click. If you got people hooked on 70.3, then a natural progression to a full IM telecast would seem more palatable to the average guy. As a tri guy I could easily sit and watch a full IM distance race and do online, but to get people hooked I think starting with 70.3 is the way to go. It would also give production companies a chance to hone the elements of the broadcast, but require less money to do so as a first up exercise. As Phil pointed out, one of the keys to a good telecast would be features that you intersperse throughout the event. Little featurettes about Athlete's background/training, technical news (like clips of guys in wind tunnels honing their position) and Tour de France locale stories would all help to alleviate any dead patches in a race. If you could get a good 70.3 race telecast together, I think you would see a willingness from the broader public to embrace the full IM. If Shep has a good pro field it would be an ideal race to road test this sort of production; good fast course!
by itu_fan, 29 July 2010Everyone makes this big point about drafting in ITU is it's downfall. But as a TV package Ironman will never, ever come close. Drafting occurs so much in non-drafting events its a joke. Not to mention the race distance debacle in long-course events such as Ironman. There's no way some of these courses have been the correct distances with the times that have been produced. ITU Racing is exciting, fast and the best product in Triathlon at the moment. Fingers crossed ONE HD will get the rights soon to start showing every leg live on air!
by trimac, 29 July 2010I reckon non drafting tri 's makre for better veiwing as it is a race the whole way through not just a mere parade whilst the athletes wait for the run.
by Whiteline, 29 July 2010It's about engagement, making something believable and leading the viewer on a journey. Everyone could watc IM racing and enjoy it if you can include these elements.
by Derek Boothroyd, 28 July 2010You can sell anything as long as you have the right elements.
The only coverage that does this is the Kona special
Totally agree. Some of the early 1990's coverages of Hawaii where 2hr productions that were gripping from start to finish. To extend this out to a full IM can be just as enticing. Look at the annual Bathurst 1000 coverage. At the outset, a 1000km car race would seem to be pretty boring TV however the way it's packaged makes for great TV. I have never been of the view that non-drafting triathlon can't be made into a good TV product. I still crack out the 1991 Gold Coast World Championships every now and then. Totally enthralling non-drafting triathlon.