April 3rd, 2008

From the Pros

by Matt Taylor in Featured, Marketing, athletes

Chris Lukezic: Future’s So Bright…Chris Lukezic is a good friend. He’s someone I admire and respect, not for his 3:33 PR and 2006 US Championship, but for his ability to 1) see running through a broader lens and 2) define himself as more than a runner. When I was an assistant coach at Georgetown (while Chris was a student) Chris and I spent many hours discussing the sport, most often at his favorite coffee joint - Murky Coffee, situated across the river in Arlington, VA. The most frequently discussed, and lamented, topic of conversation was the failure of our sport to market itself and its athletes in a already-crowded marketplace. Well, in June 2007 Chris started a blog. And last week he wrote one of the most intelligent and thought-provoking posts I’ve ever read from an athlete. I strongly urge you to read his words below. Chris, welcome to the conversation…

From fifteenhundred.com, March 24, 2008 by Chris Lukezic:

This post stems from long running discussions I have had with a number of people regarding the marketing and brand positioning of the sport. It is easy to sit back and criticize the IAAF and the USATF for failing to make the moves necessary to address the evolving face of sports, media, and fans.

Track needs to continually evolve, like any efficient business does, to the demands of the marketplace. This is something the IAAF and the USATF have been very slow to do. The USATF needs to refocus the professional side of the sport towards a revenue generating operation. The limitation of the current non-profit structure has only limited USATFs ability to commit itself to a proper brand image and marketing strategy that can contribute to increased interest in the sport and the further “professionalization” of the sport in the United States. The search for a new CEO at the USATF has brought the organization to a monumental crossroad. One road leads towards more of the same and a glacial attempt to catch up and emulate what other sports knew 5 years ago. The other road, which can only be traversed by bringing in someone from outside the established organization, leads to a restructuring and probably a few years of growing pains to implement a corporate style structure into the financial, branding, and marketing functions of the USATF.

The restructuring of the USATF has to begin with a full separation in operations of the professional and non-professional aspects of the sport. They could go as far as to completely eliminate USATF from any relation to professional track and field in the US and name it something else. This is not because the USATF has failed at what is has done. It just hasn’t progressed as fast as the market has. The separation would be needed to instill a unified identity for each aspect of the sport that all employees and athletes can stand behind. By separating and restructuring it eliminates any confusion or muddling of the core values/identity of the professional side of the sport. One side of the organization would remain a non-profit and focus on all youth and masters efforts. This side of the organization would also be the national governing body of track and field for all “non-professional” activities. This is similar to what already happens with the elite athlete department run by a separate group of people. However, I’m calling for something more marked. The reasoning behind creating a new group (maybe even a name change?) is to fully focus business efforts for each group. Youth and Masters runners who participate are one market that the USATF has to consider. However the elite side of the sport needs to focus itself towards fans. Participators are not necessarily fans. The disconnect between people who run and people who watch running is HUGE and fully demonstrates this point. There aren’t many sports that people participate in and still take no interest in outside of their own participation.

To focus on the fans, professional track and field in the United States needs its own organization and its own structure, distinct and separate from what we currently have. This is necessary for the elite side of the sport to find its voice. A comprehensive brand overhaul is needed first. Track is unidentifiable. Cycling has its romanticism, baseball its history, and basketball its urban swagger. What does track have? The Olympics are an obvious answer, but anyone who runs knows there is more to the sport than that. Track and running needs to find that voice and then market it to the point consumers (ie. fans) can identify with it. We can’t confuse consumers with mixed or inconsistent messages.

Consumers want images, they want ideas, and they want a culture that they can project themselves into. Often times this sport underestimates the power that good marketing and branding can have in drawing in interest in the sport. Track needs to reinvent itself in a more glamorous light. This means better branding of the USATF, better marketing of its core message/voice, and tweaking the way meets are run. Sponsors need to become more visible as well. The USATF needs to make their sponsors a part of their strategy. We can’t just paste a Toyota logo up around the track and call it a good sponsorship strategy. We need to draw those sponsors in with inclusive strategies that treat those sponsors like they are part of the organization (which they truly are). The athletes need to be utilized through more community interaction and local marketing of individual athletes. When I meet people (even briefly) in DC and I tell them I am going to be racing on ESPN at the New York Grand Prix they are far more likely to watch because I have given them a reason to watch. I’m a local and I’m someone they met that they can root for. I’ve given them a reason to tune in. For instance, I don’t necessarily love college basketball, but I love to watch Georgetown play and I won’t miss a game. That is because I have a reason to watch. Track needs to give fans the same reasoning. Finally the USATF needs to open up athlete sponsorship by changing logo size rules, race number configuration (make meet sponsor logo bigger and athlete name smaller). Fans on TV should be able to see that Reebok sponsors me. However under the current rules the size of the logo is limited and nearly impossible to see unless you are on the track.

Obviously a few pages of writing (although I would call this blogging more than writing due to its free form nature) only really scratch the surface of the possibilities for the sport. However, I felt it was important to add something to this discussion. With a lack of mainstream media coverage I am hoping that the voices of people intimately connected to the sport will be heard and considered. I believe the more the sport is discussed the more likely it is that really good ideas will be hatched.

As a post script to this post I am adding a few points that my father brought up in an email to me. He mentions the USGA and the PGA as a prime example of how separate organizations can operate independently yet use their synergies to promote both the amateur and the professional sides of the sport. The USGA governs the sport at all levels and promotes the game to scratch golfers and +20 handicappers alike. The PGA, as the professional arm of the sport, deals with its own marketing, branding, tournaments, and the biggest major championship of the year. On top of that they protect, utilize, and encourage all of the players within the association. The PGA has done a very good job of supporting the guys at the bottom of the leader board as much as they do the guys at the top. If anything the strength of the PGA is in its overwhelming depth of quality players. The USATF and the IAAF alike have very little if any system in place to give the guy fresh out of college the support necessary to spend 4 or 5 years training and racing before reaching their peak in their mid to late 20’s. This is where having a separate professional organization in the US can make a difference. The USATF puts a lot of time and energy into their grassroots youth programs but hasn’t developed a system that can do the same for elites. So far it has been private organizations that have taken the initiative to do this (Hansons, Zap, OTC etc.). So how does the USATF support those organizations? I really don’t know but I’m putting it out there. We need a CEO at the USATF who can think creatively about the whole system and develop comprehensive solutions. The USATF pays well enough that they can find the talent to do this. The question really is, will they look outside of the establishment to find a leader? The role of CEO of the USATF should not be viewed as a reward for minding ones p’s and q’s within the organization and showing “leadership” qualities. In my opinion, the first fault of the USATF is looking within the sport for a leader. We need a fresh perspective.

Last 5 posts by Matt Taylor
No tag for this post.

5 Responses to “From the Pros”

  1. ben says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 9:16 am |

    “Consumers want images, they want ideas, and they want a culture that they can project themselves into.”

    Obviously the infrastructure of USATF has to change and become more modern(very well put in this post by the way), but I think the above quote is the most important part of marketing track that people seem to constantly overlook.

    So many track fans say how it would be great if track was like the NFL in this way or the NBA in that way, but they fail to realize that there are A LOT of interesting, intelligent people who are fans of track that can create this desired culture through developing smart, quick, and cool media that make people WANT TO BECOME track fans.

    I wouldn’t want TO BECOME a badminton fan if the only way I could see it is from a shakey home video camera and the only things that I can read about it use the same tired cliches in every piece of writing.

    Changing the way the sport is covered by improving and innovating in video, writing, and all other media coverage of the sport is the best way to make it cool to be a track fan, which will make people want to project themselves into the culture of track and field.

  2. Tom Borish says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am |

    “I wouldn’t want TO BECOME a badminton fan if the only way I could see it is from a shakey home video camera and the only things that I can read about it use the same tired cliches in every piece of writing.”

    Ben,

    Ever hear this before, “So, tell us about your race” or “tell us about the meet”.

    I THINK I know what website you’re referring to and I will say they do a great job but it could be much, much better.

    I’ll once again go with the NASCAR comparison. Perhaps it’s not best that I’m comparing cars and athletes — but the point is that fans can associate with these drivers so much because of their sponsors. Every time I walk into a Home Depot (or even think of Home Depot), I associate it with Tony Stewart. He wears the orange and white like there’s no tomorrow.

    What does Home Depot have anything to do with race car driving? You can’t even find auto parts in the store. This also goes back to Matt’s post about stepping outside our boundaries and getting in with sponsors other than running shoes.

    USATF is in dire need of marketing change and I hope (I really, really hope) that they will allow an outside resource to step above the norm of simply running a 30-second spot at midnight on ESPN2 of why you should become a member of the organization.

    That, in no way shape or form, provides any reason for fans to follow the sport.

    We need coverage to step out of fields of the same, old, tiring, cliche remarks of who did what and why. We need to stop serving to the Track & Field News geeks of the world who want to know what the split was on the second-leg of the 4×800 meters at the Penn Relays. That only serves to the very small hard-core fans of the sport whom we’ll never see leave anyways. They’ll always be there.

    What’s the solution? To be different. To be challenging. To be something that no one else in this sport has attempted. I’ve been involved in this sport for only 10 years and I can say without any hesitation that nothing has changed at all.

    Very well written piece by Chris and I wish more professional athletes such as himself were outspoken.

  3. Bryan says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 12:03 am |

    Both Ben and Tom bring up very good points. I think the user generated content and home video approach is actually a good one, but it’s only going to resonate with a certain subset of the target audience.

    I’ve given a lot of thought to this issue, though I’ve never written formally about it. Maybe I’ll do so soon. The NASCAR example is one I’ve played with, but the thing about that model is that you have the same people competing every weekend against each other. It’s about competition, pure and simple. Same with golf. Maybe if every distance runner had to run in a weekly distance race at various distances against the same competition we could start having discussions about “who’s better on a dirt track” or “who will have the advantage in the 2400 meter race: the distance guys or the middle-distance guys”.

    And what if the changes required distance runners to give up some of their current freedoms (to choose their own races, their own goals, their own coaches, their own training locations) in order to make it work? What if the solution includes runners agreeing to compete in prime time televised meets EVERY WEEK?

    The types of changes that are required are probably more than just branding and allowing athletes to wear larger logos. These are good immediate first steps, but we may need to create an entirely new “way of doing track.” And that will require more than just the USATF to change. It’ll require athletes to change too. And in my experience, when you start asking for that, all bets are off.

  4. Nick says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm |

    I like the ideas of making the sport more popular. I am currently making the transition from running to cycling, and then at some time back to running. The reason I bring this up is because under USACF (cycling federation), you have Categories that go 1 (being the best), and 5 being a beginner.

    You also have 4 categories for cycling (road, mountain, Cyclo-cross, and track), so you are a Cat 1-5 for each one of those categories. You also have to pay into USA Cycling, for your license every year. The higher category you are the better sponsorship you will get.

    As people have mentioned above, is USATF should be able to show more of their sponsors. In USA Cycling, they can be any size they want.

    Another crazy Idea would be something like the Tour De France, but for running…I know…It would be crazy!

  5. Scott Bush says:
    April 6th, 2008 at 11:25 pm |

    All you guys make great points, but in order to make any of your ideas reality it is going to take a few million dollars of start-up money and USATF totally reforming how they run the sport. I would like to say that it wouldn’t take that much money and all of us could just band together and start a website that covers the professional side of the sport, but in order to do it right it takes that kind of money.

    With all of this branding athletes, creating a tour type talk, it really makes me think that the first way to really push this sport is to take it over from USATF. It would take a lot of work and energy, but starting up a road racing circuit, a professional one, would be the most obvious big step in changing our sport. USATF pours such little money into this area and if the money is right, or you can create teams, many of the “second-tier” type runners would jump on board. You don’t need to start with the big dogs necessarily, but rather start somewhere and build up…much like Major League Soccer has done for the past decade.

Leave a Reply