Clayton Murphy rips Flotrack

Brazier is 100% better than Murphy

angie ocath wrote:

Seems like the pros are as dick of the Flotrack shenanigans as the rest of us.

https://twitter.com/clayton_murph/status/1261020535531565057?s=21

Not sure how any of this makes him a dick. Him asking them to not use his picture in an arbitrarily written article to make money seems like a pretty reasonable request. What he’s implying is that they’re essentially trying to make money off the university’s expense (along with that of the athletes who run xc there). Plus the title of the article itself is the only info that actually needed to be presented; writing an article about it seems pointless and unnecessary.

Several of your points make no sense.

The article was not arbitrarily written. The news just came out. People on Letsrun are also discussing it.

How is the articke costing the university or its athletes anything? You said it was written at their expense when the reality is that a Flotrack employee got paid to prepare it so it was at the expense of Flotrack.

Saying they just have a headline? What? That is called click-bait. Should newspapers just have headlines?

My newspaper ran an article on Monday about a golf match that was played on Sunday. It used pictures of the golfers. The match was played for charity. So your logic is that somehow the newspaper article was written at the expense of the charity and the golfers and that the golfers should demand the newspaper that day be provided free to anyone who wants it.

It sounds like the people on this forum who dislike Flotrack do so out of disagreement over its business strategy, and not some deeper, moral issue. I don't have any opinion on the product, but I imagine the owners' issues are probably more complex than what letsrun posters whittle them down to.

Seems like you misread the comment. The fact that flotrack initially made this article cost money to read is silly when they basically copy/pasted it from a different article that was free to read, especially when the article itself gives no more substance than its title. I didn’t say the article shouldn’t exist because it’s headline gives the same info as the article itself, but that’s it doesn’t make sense to charge one to read such an article. Plus your newspaper comparison doesn’t really work in this case.

asdfadf wrote:

What is Clayton Murphy's argument exactly? It seems incoherent. I just re-read his tweets. What is he talking about? Is he dumb? He says his argument with Flotrack "is simple." It doesn't seem simple. It seems like he's vaguely whining about: 1. Flotrack using a photo of him that he doesn't own, 2. Flotrack content not being free, and 3. the article not being in depth enough. Flotrack isn't PBS. Yeah they want the sport to grow but they're a business and they used a headline to make a boring story about Akron cross country seem somewhat interesting.

Why is he picking a fight with one of the few media companies willing to cover him? Whatever is driving him, whether it's frustration or narcissism, it seems misguided.

I had the same reaction. I cannot understand what his argument is. He alludes to them playing "games." It doesn't make any sense.

Still, Flotrack is garbage. It used to be good, and I'm sure some of it still is, like workout wednesday videos and maybe some of their athlete interviews. But it doesn't seem worth what they charge. Far better content on LRC.

It doesn't make sense to charge for something such as this article? Actually, businesses should try to maximize profit. Do you realize that the running shoe you pay $120 for costs $10 to manufacture? The reason they charge more is so that the NBA players and NFL players who endorse the product can get millions of $ from you and me one shoe at a time. Murphy is one of those money hungry people who should not charge Nike. They give him shoes and clothes and he still demands money.

That was a bizarre way of changing the subject. I was talking about a flotrack article and you’re out here ranting about shoe companies and Clayton Murphy demanding money from Nike. Maybe you should start a new thread.

Jesus, a lot of whining over a measly $12.50 a month. That's like the cost of one meal at Chipotle. People can't spare one single meal at Chipotle so that the people at Flotrack don't have to live in a box so you can get precious running content. Flotrack sucks anyways, why do you people care how much it costs if it's so bad?

I was trying to provide some apologies but they obviously went over your head since you thought it was a different topic. So your point is that you don't think a company should charge for something? Easy. Don't buy that product. Flotrack is smart to charge, or they would cease to exist just as any other company would who stops charging for products.

Agreed. I'm no a Flotrack fan, but I'm not following Murphy's complaint regarding this specific issue.

All I read wrote:

Jesus, a lot of whining over a measly $12.50 a month. That's like the cost of one meal at Chipotle. People can't spare one single meal at Chipotle so that the people at Flotrack don't have to live in a box so you can get precious running content. Flotrack sucks anyways, why do you people care how much it costs if it's so bad?

That's the point. Flotrack sucks. It's not worth nearly 150 dollars a year.

I don't know why you and others are trying to make people feel guilty about refusing to pay for a subscription. Flotrack picked their business strategy, and we pick where we spend our own money. If they live in a box, it's their own damn fault - not mine.

All I read wrote:

Jesus, a lot of whining over a measly $12.50 a month. That's like the cost of one meal at Chipotle. People can't spare one single meal at Chipotle so that the people at Flotrack don't have to live in a box so you can get precious running content. Flotrack sucks anyways, why do you people care how much it costs if it's so bad?

That's the whole point. Their claim to fame was filming Solinsky break the american record at the time. I have not seen anything else from them that would prompt me to pay that. If letsrun started charging us I just wouldn't because I don't see the value in paying to hear people talk about Caster Semenyas T levels.

Some of you pretty much missed every major track meet last year. Yet you come to Letsrun to comment on things that you did not witness.

flotrack rocker wrote:

Some of you pretty much missed every major track meet last year. Yet you come to Letsrun to comment on things that you did not witness.

This in here lies the paradox of journalism in the track and field world. All you really need to see is the results. Everything else is just fluff for the die hards.

The Flotrack meet coverage, interviews, and segments like the Workout Wednesdays over the years have been great. In a world where we're used to getting everything online (news, podcasts, etc.) for free yes, it's frustrating to pay a subscription. However it's within their right to charge. The better argument may be they should charge differently. If they can't survive on ads alone maybe they should do an on demand payment plan. For example if you really want to watch a certain meet, maybe you can pay $10 to watch that meet and its related coverage.

A high profile professional athlete like Clayton Murphy attacking them without a logical argument "hurts the sport" way more than them literally covering the sport (albeit for a cost).

Maybe the worst in this are the mob mentality people that just responded to his tweets "yeah F Flotrack!" that genuinely enjoy running content and didn't put much thought into tweeting something like "yeah destroy them they suck I can't believe they're not a non-profit!"

A lot of us just don't know what they are doing anymore. I remember workout Wednesdays ten years ago when it was free. It was awesome, it is no longer free. I do not need to see NAU do mile reps for $12/month.

The whole point ofMurphy’s argument has nothing to do with the site making you pay for everything or paying for meets or workouts or whatever. It’s the fact that they put negative poorly written articles behind the paywall and he felt like they could have helped the sport and university by writing a supportive article or informative.

Btw the central Michigan article is free to read. So they did listen

First I am a Flotrack subscriber (so many folks will slam me for that Im sure) I love NCAA XC and it really is the only place to get coverage of the races - I considered a few times in the last couple of years cancelling, but with my daughter and her friends as HS runners, it included the access to Milesplit so I kept it.

I think they did do a lot of good content a few years ago, the last couple of years it has dwindled - personally loved the different docu series that they did and still love the Workouts that they post. but as I said they have not continued these at the pace that I think the premium deserves.

I also think they dont make it easy to comment and contribute to the site - I think that is an area that could be enhanced.

As someone said I do also enjoy the podcasts but I believe that the audio content is free anyway.