Grand Slam Track is a disaster - The general premise of Grand Slam Track was bad

Ofcoursethishappened wrote:

Honestly, the idea of Grand Slam Track wasn’t bad. The sport clearly needs a new format—because the current model isn’t doing much to grow the audience or bring in new fans.
But like most things, they got some funding, and the people who ended up with that funding—nice as they may be—don’t actually understand entertainment. They don’t understand storytelling.

I know people in LA who’ve worked on massive shows—producers, writers, camera crew, lighting techs. People who build narratives for a living. Some of them submitted resumes. Not one got a callback. Not even a conversation. These are people who could’ve helped shape the narrative of the sport in a way that actually connects with viewers.

Because let’s be honest: if you’re just slapping a new name on the same race format without building any kind of story arc or emotional investment, then what’s the point? It’s still just another meet. Just another Diamond League with a rebrand.

If you want this to work, you need to think like entertainment professionals do. Build characters. Lean into archetypes. Make each athlete a story, not just a stat. Map out a season arc like it’s a show. Use commentary and social media to frame rivalries, comebacks, redemption stories.

Otherwise, you’re asking people to tune into a sport they don’t understand, for athletes they’ve never heard of, with no reason to care who wins.

And that’s not a Grand Slam. That’s just another heat.

B

Ofcoursethishappened wrote:

Honestly, the idea of Grand Slam Track wasn’t bad. The sport clearly needs a new format—because the current model isn’t doing much to grow the audience or bring in new fans.
But like most things, they got some funding, and the people who ended up with that funding—nice as they may be—don’t actually understand entertainment. They don’t understand storytelling.

I know people in LA who’ve worked on massive shows—producers, writers, camera crew, lighting techs. People who build narratives for a living. Some of them submitted resumes. Not one got a callback. Not even a conversation. These are people who could’ve helped shape the narrative of the sport in a way that actually connects with viewers.

Because let’s be honest: if you’re just slapping a new name on the same race format without building any kind of story arc or emotional investment, then what’s the point? It’s still just another meet. Just another Diamond League with a rebrand.

If you want this to work, you need to think like entertainment professionals do. Build characters. Lean into archetypes. Make each athlete a story, not just a stat. Map out a season arc like it’s a show. Use commentary and social media to frame rivalries, comebacks, redemption stories.

Otherwise, you’re asking people to tune into a sport they don’t understand, for athletes they’ve never heard of, with no reason to care who wins.

And that’s not a Grand Slam. That’s just another heat.

B

McRunnin wrote:

Ofcoursethishappened wrote:

Honestly, the idea of Grand Slam Track wasn’t bad. The sport clearly needs a new format—because the current model isn’t doing much to grow the audience or bring in new fans.
But like most things, they got some funding, and the people who ended up with that funding—nice as they may be—don’t actually understand entertainment. They don’t understand storytelling.

I know people in LA who’ve worked on massive shows—producers, writers, camera crew, lighting techs. People who build narratives for a living. Some of them submitted resumes. Not one got a callback. Not even a conversation. These are people who could’ve helped shape the narrative of the sport in a way that actually connects with viewers.

Because let’s be honest: if you’re just slapping a new name on the same race format without building any kind of story arc or emotional investment, then what’s the point? It’s still just another meet. Just another Diamond League with a rebrand.

If you want this to work, you need to think like entertainment professionals do. Build characters. Lean into archetypes. Make each athlete a story, not just a stat. Map out a season arc like it’s a show. Use commentary and social media to frame rivalries, comebacks, redemption stories.

Otherwise, you’re asking people to tune into a sport they don’t understand, for athletes they’ve never heard of, with no reason to care who wins.

And that’s not a Grand Slam. That’s just another heat.

B

I agree about the need for storytelling. That's the biggest missing piece. The Sprint docuseries did a nice job of it, and GST has had a couple of good athlete video features, but there's potential for so much more.

Kickers usually win wrote:

Ofcoursethishappened wrote:

Honestly, the idea of Grand Slam Track wasn’t bad. The sport clearly needs a new format—because the current model isn’t doing much to grow the audience or bring in new fans.
But like most things, they got some funding, and the people who ended up with that funding—nice as they may be—don’t actually understand entertainment. They don’t understand storytelling.

I know people in LA who’ve worked on massive shows—producers, writers, camera crew, lighting techs. People who build narratives for a living. Some of them submitted resumes. Not one got a callback. Not even a conversation. These are people who could’ve helped shape the narrative of the sport in a way that actually connects with viewers.

Because let’s be honest: if you’re just slapping a new name on the same race format without building any kind of story arc or emotional investment, then what’s the point? It’s still just another meet. Just another Diamond League with a rebrand.

If you want this to work, you need to think like entertainment professionals do. Build characters. Lean into archetypes. Make each athlete a story, not just a stat. Map out a season arc like it’s a show. Use commentary and social media to frame rivalries, comebacks, redemption stories.

Otherwise, you’re asking people to tune into a sport they don’t understand, for athletes they’ve never heard of, with no reason to care who wins.

And that’s not a Grand Slam. That’s just another heat.

B

I was instantly drawn to MLB, the NFL and the NBA. The players seemed larger than life to me and zero marketing was needed to make me a fan. At the time, I saw other sports on TV, including track, and I just wasn’t interested.

Few athletes have an interesting story outside of the sport. Fans of the major sports, have no interest in an “up close and personal”. It’s the same for track which is why having a baby is newsworthy. What would Fisher’s story be? That he’s talented, trains hard and was a great student is boring. Ingebrigtsen’s garage full of nice cars is uninteresting as well and pales in comparison to the collections owned by entertainers and other athletes. For most potential fans, and me as well, the legal travails of his father is ugh, and they won’t want to hear about it.

As others have said, track is a niche sport and no marketing that will ever change that.

Ofcoursethishappened wrote:

Honestly, the idea of Grand Slam Track wasn’t bad. The sport clearly needs a new format—because the current model isn’t doing much to grow the audience or bring in new fans.
But like most things, they got some funding, and the people who ended up with that funding—nice as they may be—don’t actually understand entertainment. They don’t understand storytelling.

I know people in LA who’ve worked on massive shows—producers, writers, camera crew, lighting techs. People who build narratives for a living. Some of them submitted resumes. Not one got a callback. Not even a conversation. These are people who could’ve helped shape the narrative of the sport in a way that actually connects with viewers.

Because let’s be honest: if you’re just slapping a new name on the same race format without building any kind of story arc or emotional investment, then what’s the point? It’s still just another meet. Just another Diamond League with a rebrand.

If you want this to work, you need to think like entertainment professionals do. Build characters. Lean into archetypes. Make each athlete a story, not just a stat. Map out a season arc like it’s a show. Use commentary and social media to frame rivalries, comebacks, redemption stories.

Otherwise, you’re asking people to tune into a sport they don’t understand, for athletes they’ve never heard of, with no reason to care who wins.

And that’s not a Grand Slam. That’s just another heat.

B

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

The amount of negativity is overkill in my eyes. Miami was a good event. I bet they generated far more revenue than Doha on ticket sales, as Doha simply gave away tickets to Kenyan and Ethiopian ex-pats. Is this sustainable is a fair critique, but chopping down to 2 days and saving some (unnecessary) prize money is smart. Should they have anticipated the doubling, eight-person distance finals in sprint weather without pacing being a lot of jogging? Yes.

Next year if they’re still around they need to get a European site or two, probably pick Icahn and not Penn, keep Miramar, and I’d make the short hurdles group hurdles only a la distance. It’s unfortunate there’s some lopsided groups like 400 Hurdles, they need to get on the same page with athletes and if doubling is keeping Rai/Warholm/Bol out scrap it.