General Discussion Triathlon Talk » WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100% Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2015-01-16 2:00 PM
in reply to: ChrisM

User image

Veteran
1900
1000500100100100100
Southampton, Ontario
Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%
I follow WTC on facebook and it seems like there is a lot of backlash on the event take overs. I did the Ironman 70.3 in Muskoka and did find that it was very well run but not exponentially better than other series that I have participated in. My fear is that WTC will continue to gobble up events until you will have no choice but to do a high dollar Ironman event if you want to do a triathlon.


2015-01-16 2:12 PM
in reply to: ChrisM

User image

Expert
2355
20001001001002525
Madison, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%
Originally posted by ChrisM

Originally posted by Jason N

One can look at this from three angles.

From the non military AG perspective, you're basically making a forced donation of $200, but at least it is tax deductible.

If you are active military, you have the option to race at a discount, and compete for a WC slot.  There is no other WTC race that offers a military discount, so this is something totally new.  Doing a WTC 70.3 for $200 is a pretty good deal.

From the WTC perspective, assuming that all of the $200 goes towards charity, then this new pricing structure is less profitable than their normal 70.3 business model.  They still only earn $300 for each general entry, and lose out on anywhere from $25-100 for each military entry.  So clearly this is not some type of "money grab" initiative.  

Lastly, while the base rates for Super Frog and Santa Clara have gone up significantly from their original price before being absorbed by the WTC, they are perfectly in line with all the other WTC 70.3s.  In fact, their base rates are still cheaper than my local 70.3...which is Honu, at $320.

 

But no other race iis a "foundation only" entry for AG.  I *believe* that military had Kona slots in superfrog 2014....  I believe, not sure.  If so, that's no different.  As for the profitability, the money goes to the  IM foundation, and recent articles say that might be going to WTC's bottom line instead.   And absent a tiered entry based on dates, the superfrog fees are WAY above std 70.3 rates 

And then there's the initial 500 fee with no mention of charity, going offline, then coming back up.   Maybe just a mistake?  who knows.   But I think the foundation only for AGers is strange.  Under your theory, it makes it less attractive (IMO, since i think the huge majority would prefer straight up AG entry) to the entrant, and less profitable to WTC?  That pass the smell test?




While I dislike WTC very much I found those articles by Susan Lacke to be a bit unfair. If you look at any non-profit they will of course direct some money to payroll and other expenses needed to be able to actually run. I could be wrong but the money wasn't going directly to WTC's bottom-line. Many non-profits are run the same way the foundation is. Again I could be wrong.

But yes I agree as a whole this is another huge F up by WTC. I haven't don't a WTC race in 3 years and have little to no desire to do any more of their races. I get way more bang for my buck with lifetime, rev 3, and local races. Fortunately for me living in such a strong community I have plenty of races that offer great depth of fields other then what WTC provides if I want to go that route.
2015-01-16 2:20 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Elite
3140
2000100010025
Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%

I am all for free market and do not begrudge a company from making money but personally I am getting pretty tired of WTC. WTC can do what they want but so can I.  This does not help the west coast but I am looking at CHALLENGE races first from now on, and then if it does not work out schedule/logistic-wise then I will look at the IM/WTC schedule.  Will be at Challenge Atlantic City this year.  (and no I do not work for Challenge Family- Just a happy customer)



Edited by FELTGood 2015-01-16 2:21 PM
2015-01-16 2:21 PM
in reply to: ChrisM

User image

Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%

Originally posted by ChrisM

Originally posted by Jason N

One can look at this from three angles.

From the non military AG perspective, you're basically making a forced donation of $200, but at least it is tax deductible.

If you are active military, you have the option to race at a discount, and compete for a WC slot.  There is no other WTC race that offers a military discount, so this is something totally new.  Doing a WTC 70.3 for $200 is a pretty good deal.

From the WTC perspective, assuming that all of the $200 goes towards charity, then this new pricing structure is less profitable than their normal 70.3 business model.  They still only earn $300 for each general entry, and lose out on anywhere from $25-100 for each military entry.  So clearly this is not some type of "money grab" initiative.  

Lastly, while the base rates for Super Frog and Santa Clara have gone up significantly from their original price before being absorbed by the WTC, they are perfectly in line with all the other WTC 70.3s.  In fact, their base rates are still cheaper than my local 70.3...which is Honu, at $320.

 

But no other race iis a "foundation only" entry for AG.  I *believe* that military had Kona slots in superfrog 2014....  I believe, not sure.  If so, that's no different.  As for the profitability, the money goes to the  IM foundation, and recent articles say that might be going to WTC's bottom line instead.   And absent a tiered entry based on dates, the superfrog fees are WAY above std 70.3 rates 

And then there's the initial 500 fee with no mention of charity, going offline, then coming back up.   Maybe just a mistake?  who knows.   But I think the foundation only for AGers is strange.  Under your theory, it makes it less attractive (IMO, since i think the huge majority would prefer straight up AG entry) to the entrant, and less profitable to WTC?  That pass the smell test?

I agree that the forced donation is odd.  I don't know if this is a wise move on their part, but again, I don't see it as a money grab.  So if that's what they want to do...so be it.  

As far as tiered pricing...I see what you're getting at now.  I live in a vacuum called Hawaii.  Honu is $320...$300 is early entry fee I believe now.  We don't have such a thing as $200 early general entry that I'm now seeing for some of the other mainland US 70.3 races.

Now I'm pissed.  BURN DOWN THE WTC!!!!

2015-01-16 2:54 PM
in reply to: Jason N

User image

Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%

Originally posted by Jason N

Originally posted by ChrisM

Originally posted by Jason N

One can look at this from three angles.

From the non military AG perspective, you're basically making a forced donation of $200, but at least it is tax deductible.

If you are active military, you have the option to race at a discount, and compete for a WC slot.  There is no other WTC race that offers a military discount, so this is something totally new.  Doing a WTC 70.3 for $200 is a pretty good deal.

From the WTC perspective, assuming that all of the $200 goes towards charity, then this new pricing structure is less profitable than their normal 70.3 business model.  They still only earn $300 for each general entry, and lose out on anywhere from $25-100 for each military entry.  So clearly this is not some type of "money grab" initiative.  

Lastly, while the base rates for Super Frog and Santa Clara have gone up significantly from their original price before being absorbed by the WTC, they are perfectly in line with all the other WTC 70.3s.  In fact, their base rates are still cheaper than my local 70.3...which is Honu, at $320.

 

But no other race iis a "foundation only" entry for AG.  I *believe* that military had Kona slots in superfrog 2014....  I believe, not sure.  If so, that's no different.  As for the profitability, the money goes to the  IM foundation, and recent articles say that might be going to WTC's bottom line instead.   And absent a tiered entry based on dates, the superfrog fees are WAY above std 70.3 rates 

And then there's the initial 500 fee with no mention of charity, going offline, then coming back up.   Maybe just a mistake?  who knows.   But I think the foundation only for AGers is strange.  Under your theory, it makes it less attractive (IMO, since i think the huge majority would prefer straight up AG entry) to the entrant, and less profitable to WTC?  That pass the smell test?

I agree that the forced donation is odd.  I don't know if this is a wise move on their part, but again, I don't see it as a money grab.  So if that's what they want to do...so be it.  

As far as tiered pricing...I see what you're getting at now.  I live in a vacuum called Hawaii.  Honu is $320...$300 is early entry fee I believe now.  We don't have such a thing as $200 early general entry that I'm now seeing for some of the other mainland US 70.3 races.

Now I'm pissed.  BURN DOWN THE WTC!!!!

Finally you see the light!!!!!  

I've never been on the WTC is greedy money hungry bandwagon.  It's a business fer , and smart businesses charge what the market will bear.  Race sells out, up the price, doesn't sell out, offer perks, etc.  Honu is a good example.  It's on the Kona(ish) course, there are few other 70.3 options (that I am aware of), so they get to charge what they want.  We have lots of choices so the prices are more competitive, even among wtc races.  I just find the flat 500 forced foundation an odd business model that is new to the WTC races, and would love to be a fly on the wall to find out the reasoning behind it.

And FTR, I don't think I've ever started an anti WTC thread, or chimed in other to say it's their business and can do what they want (i even supported the Lance ban!).  I really like the product and think they put on a good race.  I know people like to bash WTC but I honestly think that overall they are interested in growing the sport (they'd be fools otherwise) and are simply pricing races based on that.  I don't even think the Santa Cruz prices are that out of line, and as you point out are in line with other similar WTC races.  Superfrog though.... it just smells fishy

2015-01-16 4:13 PM
in reply to: bcagle25

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%
Originally posted by bcagle25

While I dislike WTC very much I found those articles by Susan Lacke to be a bit unfair. If you look at any non-profit they will of course direct some money to payroll and other expenses needed to be able to actually run. I could be wrong but the money wasn't going directly to WTC's bottom-line. Many non-profits are run the same way the foundation is. Again I could be wrong.

But yes I agree as a whole this is another huge F up by WTC. I haven't don't a WTC race in 3 years and have little to no desire to do any more of their races. I get way more bang for my buck with lifetime, rev 3, and local races. Fortunately for me living in such a strong community I have plenty of races that offer great depth of fields other then what WTC provides if I want to go that route.


If you listen to the interview with TRS, there are some pretty serious accusations of where some of that money actually goes.


2015-01-17 2:00 PM
in reply to: DaveL

Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%
Originally posted by DaveL

I follow WTC on facebook and it seems like there is a lot of backlash on the event take overs. I did the Ironman 70.3 in Muskoka and did find that it was very well run but not exponentially better than other series that I have participated in. My fear is that WTC will continue to gobble up events until you will have no choice but to do a high dollar Ironman event if you want to do a triathlon.


Dave,
I am looking at that one for 2016, it's about 6 hour drive for me. Did you stay at the resort by any chance?
Joe
2015-01-18 9:17 AM
in reply to: Puppetmaster

User image

Veteran
1900
1000500100100100100
Southampton, Ontario
Subject: RE: WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100%
Originally posted by Puppetmaster

Originally posted by DaveL

I follow WTC on facebook and it seems like there is a lot of backlash on the event take overs. I did the Ironman 70.3 in Muskoka and did find that it was very well run but not exponentially better than other series that I have participated in. My fear is that WTC will continue to gobble up events until you will have no choice but to do a high dollar Ironman event if you want to do a triathlon.


Dave,
I am looking at that one for 2016, it's about 6 hour drive for me. Did you stay at the resort by any chance?
Joe


I dont live that far so I just drove up for the day but I have stayed at the resort in the past and it is really nice. If you have family I would certainly recommend it as I am sure they would have a great time. Its a beautiful area.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » WTC buys 2 new Cal. races, fees go up >100% Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Race Fees...new pricing idea Pages: 1 2 3

Started by thebigb
Views: 2107 Posts: 60

2014-04-10 12:03 PM Asalzwed

Words of advice for a first time marathoner going in < 100% Pages: 1 2

Started by TriMike
Views: 1788 Posts: 27

2012-04-24 1:06 PM TriAya

Race Fee + Processing Fee

Started by snake111
Views: 972 Posts: 7

2009-07-31 4:18 PM trix

Go buy a new bike - So worth it

Started by EvenOlder
Views: 1539 Posts: 7

2009-04-21 5:52 AM pamiejane

Gotta 100, Gotta 100, Do we hear 125?

Started by tolefanjh
Views: 1226 Posts: 8

2006-01-31 10:48 AM oneword