The Chicago Rock and Roll Half Marathon costs how much!!

Red

You are the one claiming it's so bad. Tell me why?

The way I see it, more people running= more money pumped into the sport, more competition, etc.. and that's good.

I can say that if Competitor were dropping events due to lack of participation or due to their inability to secure sponsorship we'd all say that it was a bad thing.

So c'mon smart guy.. tell me how the sport it harmed?

aquafina wrote:

The way I see it, more people running= more money pumped into the sport, more competition, etc.. and that's good.

Pumped into where? Must be a pretty broad description of "the sport".

Paying one or two elites to give the race credibility, then soaking cash from the rest for the "experience" is not moving the sport forward, just their profit model.

The one thing I really liked about the San Diego race was that it was the only one that was a full marathon only. If you said you ran San Diego it was a given you did a marathon. Now there is a half, 2 and 4 person relay. These events are turning more and more circus like each year. Another minor bitch while I am at it...why do all of the shirts say San Diego (or other venue) rnr marathon on them? People who run the relays or half didn't do 26.2, so why give them a shirt that says they did. Minor and petty I know, but it bugs me.

I know in '03 they had a half

mazx wrote:

aquafina wrote:

The way I see it, more people running= more money pumped into the sport, more competition, etc.. and that's good.

Pumped into where? Must be a pretty broad description of "the sport".

Paying one or two elites to give the race credibility, then soaking cash from the rest for the "experience" is not moving the sport forward, just their profit model.

+1

They don't pay any organizing body in the sport to put on the event (aside from the nominal certification fee), they do not stage USATF or IAAF sanctioned events, they don't host state, regional, national, or world championship races. They don't support any of the elite development programs (unless you count the agents for Russian, Romanian, and African runners), I've never noticed the health of the sport at any level improving in a city or region due to a Competitor event being held there. Tourism improves, certainly, but not the sport. I recognize that they have a product with appeal and a market that is willing to pay a premium for it, but I see no real benefit to any party outside of that relationship of buyer and seller. I'm sure that Competitor couldn't care less that they do little give back and support the sport and I'm sure that nobody should expect them to. It's not something that I like or ever would support, though.

random a hole wrote:

I know in '03 they had a half

Not the Rock and Roll San Diego.

guy who pays too much wrote:

Running was more fun when it wasn't cool.

+1

Lol, silly nerds, Running still isn't cool, just more nerds.

Some races use their revenue for athlete appearance fees and some use it for other things, such as band appearance fees. If you're attending a Rock and Roll series event, it should be obvious who you're paying to see appear.

agapius mackwamba wrote:

The Hank Zemola races (Chicago Event Management) have been mismarked for years, and now if you sign up on race day you will not get a timing chip. The Running Away group no longer gives awards on race .

Chicago Event Management ("CEM")is not the Hank Zemola owned company. His companay is Special Events Management (formerly, Chicago Special Events Management). CEM is the company that produces the Bank of America Shamrock Shuffle and the Bank of America Chicago Marathon.

All very good points. I like the Walmart v. Mom & Pop stores analogy. However, and this applies to many of the posters on this thread, this is a professional sport. The day of $10 races, with a "no-frills" approach are basically over. The way I equate it, if you want to run a $10-$30 race, this is similar to attending a minor league baseball game. If you want to take part in a world-class event, you will pay in the $100-$150 range, similar to a Major League baseball game. Same goes for seeing a college football team v. a NFL team You pay way more for a professionally run event, even though the smaller, less expensive option might be more fun. It's all about the experience and people are willing to pay big bucks for that. While I agree that RnR doesn't do a whole lot for the running community outside of putting on their race, they do offer a free magazine each month that has valuable information in it, while also staging massive races that many runners love to take part of. How many races in Chicago are actually worth running in? I live in Chicago and can honestly say it is very few. Most races are horribly organized, with the race organizers having no clue what makes for an entertaining and worth while event. And by the way, expenses need to be factored in to how much a race costs. How much do you think it costs to shut down Chicago streets, pay for police help, etc.? Add that cost on top of city taxes and insurance, and it all adds up to be a great deal. I do think the $110 or even $85 price tag is a bit high, but I also know that the Chicago Marathon pays for $600,000 in city taxes to stage their event, despite bringing 10's of millions of dollars into the local economy. I am sure RnR Chicago has to pay a similar cost for their event (probably in the $100-$200k range).Final note: As for RnR not really supporting the running community, I agree that they don't support many elite runners or sub-elite runners, but is that their job? Is it the job of the major marathons and major races to support the top athletes? Prize money would make our sport a heck of a lot more interesting if they took appearance money and made it prize money instead. That is the major problem with our sport, not the lack of money these giant races seemingly spend on athletes. The winner of the Boston Marathon won $150k. Most of the top runners in the race got paid $50k or more just to show up. To me, blame the agents and the business of the sport for killing what could be something much bigger than what it actually is.

My questions to the LR community are...What gives an event worth? If you are going to pay $50 for a race, what do you expect to get out of it?

d2xccoach wrote:

21 posts above mine in this thread, nobody with anything positive to say about this price/event. Guess what, this race is still going to sell out at whatever cap Competitor Group says. Competitor Group does not care that the 21 people above me aren't going to enter. The only way to hurt this race is to organize a race in the area on the same day that beats Competitor on price and quality and gives runners a better experience than the RnR races do. That will draw entrants away from them.

What do Ironmans cost these days - $500 or something like that? And yet they sell out immediately. I know triathletes and runners are a somewhat different demographic, but the point is race pricing doesn't seem to matter that much in terms of selling out an event.

BULLSHIT.

Uh, they're either part of the solution or they're part of the problem. Nobody else's actions absolve them of that basic responsibility.

geezer1 wrote:

Chicago Event Management ("CEM")is not the Hank Zemola owned company. His companay is Special Events Management (formerly, Chicago Special Events Management). CEM is the company that produces the Bank of America Shamrock Shuffle and the Bank of America Chicago Marathon.

Bank of America owns and operates the marathon and the Shuffle. The people who work in the race office are technically employees of BoA.

Well Well. Are you on the staff of RnR? Did a lawyer help you craft that response?

Feel better now that you have absolved yourself of all criticism? Great job of rationalizing each point in your favor. At least we know for sure it is all about your profit.

I do have to compliment you though. At least you didn't go into how many sick people your charity program heals....because you don't have one.

The event in Nashville this weekend will have 35000 people running, granted most of them are in the 1/2, but if just a small % decide to try the marathon (or another marathon) next year, that's a good thing for running.

I dont think you have to fund regional level XC races to be "good for the sport" or help that disfunction bunch at UST&F to be "good for the sport" either.

Again, if all of these even suddenly disappeared off the race scene I don't think you'd find anyone that would say that the sport is better for them being gone.

You either change the terms to reframe the argument or you don't even know the terms. Either way, you can take it back to RW with you.

yeahright1 wrote:

The event in Nashville this weekend will have 35000 people running, granted most of them are in the 1/2, but if just a small % decide to try the marathon (or another marathon) next year, that's a good thing for running.

I dont think you have to fund regional level XC races to be "good for the sport" or help that disfunction bunch at UST&F to be "good for the sport" either.

Again, if all of these even suddenly disappeared off the race scene I don't think you'd find anyone that would say that the sport is better for them being gone.

Looks like "riley stops" was sent with an agenda, eh?

I was going to jump in a small 5k this weekend so I looked up about 15 that were fairly close. Every one of them wanted at least $25-$30. I wasn't able to pre-register to any of them because of another commitment.

I just decided to skip it and wait for another weekend.

These prices are up 30-50% in the last couple years. Most had been 15 pre register, 17-20 day of race.