Mary Wittenberg Steps Down as President of New York Road Runners to Head Virgin Sport

in the end the critics of NYRR have to face the fact that the NYRR is selling out 5000 person races a couple times per month and putting on 50,000 person races and 25,000 person races and some 10,000 person races - I mean really. If NYRR was putting on such a crap experience then they wouldn't be selling out every week.

In the words of Metallica: "the only thing we're selling out...is stadiums"

You are clueless if you think that sponsors care that there are 25 Africans in the field who 99.99999% of the population has never heard of. The massively expanded and expensive pro fields are there simply to satisfy the egos of NYRR. The masses and the sponsors don't care if Mutai runs or not.

The marathon seemed to work perfectly fine when it used to be 25,000 runners so why do you think going back to that number today would be such a problem (hint: it wouldn't)? It's not going to shrink in size but your assumptions are completely flawed here.

The only person not making sense here is you. I don't even know why NYRR's decision years ago to sell out its own members in order to bring in more pros and generate more money via tour groups and charities is being debated here but it unquestionably happened. The fact that people like yourself either are blind to that fact or refuse to admit it doesn't change the fact that it happened.

You are extremely hardheaded if you can't understand that reducing an event's footprint will bring costs down. Simple math.

What grass roots stuff are you talking about? I honestly could not care if we get one less hobby jogger from across the globe that can raise $3k for a charity they have never heard of or may not care about. Is that the grass roots stuff you are referring to? I'd rather have more time qualifiers and more lottery spots. The amount of financial entanglement going on with this club is just mind boggling. Again, it's a running club, not a fortune 500 company.

Re fixed costs or any race related costs - stop and think for a second. They have to haul 50k people to the start area, then get them all moved to their corrals, then ensure the start waves go smoothly. The water stops have to be long enough for the massive crowd. The finish area has to be large enough to make sure everyone can fit and more room can be made for people that are still finishing. So if you have any basic understanding of how traffic jams are started then you can put 1 and 2 together and figure out that more participants = significantly higher costs. What's really important to note is that more participants = higher revenues. That's what this comes down to... there is absolutely no reason to keep wanting to increase the field size given what I just laid out for you.

Boston has been running into capacity issues for years now. They are realizing it's more and more difficult to accommodate a larger field. I'm sure they are finding their way around that to ensure $ keeps coming in as well.

is that you?

alapaha wrote:

in the end the critics of NYRR have to face the fact that the NYRR is selling out 5000 person races a couple times per month and putting on 50,000 person races and 25,000 person races and some 10,000 person races - I mean really. If NYRR was putting on such a crap experience then they wouldn't be selling out every week.

In the words of Metallica: "the only thing we're selling out...is stadiums"

That's not true. NYRR has the monopoly of the NYCM and everything flows from that. It's the same thing with WTC and Kona except that WTC doesn't have a monopoly on putting on an IM race in Kona but NYRR does have a monopoly on putting on a 5-borough marathon in NYC. If NYC were to bid out the marathon and another group, say Virgin Sport, got the marathon, then all of a sudden the weekly races in Central Park wouldn't sell out and NYRR would have to start trying to put on better races. WTC likewise knows it has Kona so it has jacked up the entrance fees of all its races and cut expenses as much as possible so it now puts on very expensive races that are much worse in quality than 10 years ago. The fact that you think weekly sell-outs in the Park necessarily means much of anything shows how misguided you are.

any race directors around here who want to shed some light on the economics here?

sorry I don't follow your logic

are you suggesting the 9+1 thing is artificially boosting fields for regular races? Probably true to some degree. But don't you think that is a great way to 1) get people running more and 2) reward dedicated runners? Seems to me a virtuous feedback loop.

well anyway - if NYRR stopped running the marathon why would that automatically stop weekly races from selling out? the 9+1 or are you thinking of something else?

and part 2 - I still have no clue what you mean when you say races were so much better 10 years ago. They seem the same, minus a few particular races you or someone else has pointed out. but instead we got others.

Randy Oldman wrote:

jjjjjj wrote:

One suggestion I would make, besides cutting the fees and rigmarole for the marathon and half marathon, would be to institute qualifying standards for weekly races for some of the slots, to be filled automatically by NYRR results (in the way that they automatically enter your fastest average mile time in the entries). Too many competitive runners are cut out by the quick race signups months in advance in favor of walkers and joggers (or at least, reserve a # of optional spots for local club members).

Your corral number is determined by your fastest race pace, if you provided it. It's on your bib.

Yes, that's what I'm saying: use the fastest race pace to provide guaranteed entry to the weekly races even when they fill up--and many of them fill up very quickly now. Runners who actually train very hard for the races cannot tell far in advance whether they will be healthy and in great shape at the time of the races, because their training always puts them at risk. If we were just jogging a couple miles a week, that would be a different story--we'd know an injury was highly unlikely and we'd have zero aspirations to run something competitive.

Unfortunately, I think this is happening with every sport.

I recently had to attend a Soul Cycle class as part of a school charity event. I felt like I was part of the audience to one of the worst infomercials of all time. Everyone else seemed happy though. There was also not one soul in there that probably would want to stomach a real bike ride outdoors or even a regular spin class. So they go there to sweat and dance to club music on a stationary bike. There is no resistance or hard work involved.

Here's what I'm getting at. They are bringing in folks who otherwise would never be doing that activity. That = lots of money. This is what's happened with running. Most of the participants in any major marathon are not in this for long term. They are checking it off their bucket list. These races have become an "all about you" experience. The marketing is just geared toward the non-runners. They couldn't tell the difference between a good and poorly run race. They couldn't tell if the price was too high or not and they probably don't care. They run it in 4-6 hrs, get a bunch of pictures taken, get their medal and shirt and go home. The following year there are thousands more to replace them. Even better, none of them know enough to complain. Therefore, what does a local runner like me mean to the NYRR? Why would they care about me when they are going to milk a lot more $ from others.

The 9+1 unquestionably is the reason why the races sell out and sell out months in advance. Take away 9+1 or take away the marathon altogether from NYRR and, boom, all of a sudden you will be able to sign up for weekly races on race day morning (remember those days?)

The races were better 10 years ago because of all the changes discussed above. Eliminating Gatorade and only using water poured from fire hydrants, no oranges or bagels in most races, eliminating almost all races not 4 and 5 miles, eliminating A LOT (not "a few") of former races for no reason and replacing them with more generic 4 and 5 milers, changing Queens and the Bronx to 10-milers (and eliminating the tack-on 5K), etc. I don't really care that much about the races being larger other than the fact that they sell out so far in advance. 95% of the 6000 people in a typical race are shuffling/walking/jogging and have no impact on the race experience of people actually racing.

In 1983, NYC had 600 runners at 2:46 or under and something like 100 under 2:20. Nowadays, it is actually much less competitive other than a handful of runners some years. And the cost? A fraction of what it is currently for a five-borough race with tremendous competition.

Okay, right, with very expensive sponsors and very large fields, somehow the cost of the entry fee has to go up massively??? That's completely bogus. In San Francisco, a local club puts on a weekly $1 racing series on a bike path around Lake Merced. It is beautiful and usually they have some brownies and lemonade or the like afterward. The $1 entry goes to cover the city parking fee.

NYRR under Mary Wittenberg has been so corporatized that it has completely lost sight of its core runners. If the sponsors were so necessary and beneficial, then why was the race so much cheaper before any of that big money came in?

9+1 is a factor, but not the only one or probably even the major one. There is a running boom going on and NYRR benefits from that, as a quality provider of solid race experiences in a megacity of 8 million souls, many of them rich and healthy.

Maybe it's just b/c I'm running with more focus, but I look at the 90s and 00s as less good than now. The races were weird - that alumni run? splash and dash? trevira? a silly slow 5k around the north loop? they seemed gimicky and senseless.

I like the current races - Scotland is probably my favorite race now - festive and a rare 10k. Brooklyn is fantastic. Front Runners has some color to it. etc. Maybe you are letting your personal feelings color your past experiences too much.

jjjjj wrote:

why was the race so much cheaper before any of that big money came in?

jjjjj wrote:

why was the race so much cheaper before any of that big money came in?

and remember when coogan's was almost cancelled because of the city charging much higher rates? The ppolice alone wanted $45,000 for a little 5k uptown, on basically one street. Imagine what the city charges now for the marathon, which shuts down hugely more, all across the city? it's got to be millions.

Do you mean the Splash and Dash that gave people access to the pool for free after the race? Yeah, that was a terrible and weird idea and nobody used the pool afterward. The Museum Run 5K on a Wednesday night? Another weird one that nobody ever did. Trevira Twosome done on Valentine's Day? Yeah, that was another weird one. One that was so weird that Mary met her husband at it. Good thing Fred didn't axe it the year before she met her husband.

You are talking nonsense if you think think 9+1 isn't the single reason why the races sell out. Just run the numbers. For all the bucket listers, that's 9 races that they normally wouldn't do (for the most part) times many many 1000s. That's who is filling up the races. Take them out and you then can get into races. I do think that it was a very smart business move but that doesn't change the fact that it directs screws the regular members (or even people who are in town and would like to sign up for a race) who don't want to have to sign up 3 months in advance for races.

I believe you think we are in the wrong decade. The running boom was in the 70s. The boom now is in Crossfit, Mudders, Soul Cycle and triathlon.

to get personal for a second,

every sentence you write makes me think 'grumpy old man'

(hey, I've been called worse names on this thread too so I feel I have some leeway)

but you just seem so unhappy with change and with new people taking over what was once yours. I think that is coloring your judgment.

As for me, I have plenty of money, am running well in my mid 40s, am on a good team, can qualify for the NYCM and NYCHM if I ever want to run them, am in the first corral every race, and am organized enough to sign up early for the $18 rate. For that I get awesome competition and a regular set of people to race against and form friendly rivalries. So my personal situation causes me to like the NYRR a lot. But I can understand how your personal situation might go the other way.

I may be old and I may be a man but I am not grumpy. I just have this ability, that you don't seem to have, to recognize when things change for the worse. All of the positives you listed were all true up until 10 years ago (with no need to sign up 3 months in advance) but most of the negatives of today didn't exist. We get it. You very much enjoy generic 4 and 5 milers that, due to your exquisite organizational skills, you know to sign up for months in advance and you enjoy having many people faster than you in races. Wonderful. You also mistakenly think that we are in the midst of a running boom despite it having occurred several decades ago.

You are the type of member NYRR loves. NYRR is intentionally screwing you but you are too out to lunch to figure it out.

long ago 'club' member wrote:

The nyrr CLUB essentially died when Joe Klienerman's cigar box was retired.

The club in the nyrrclub was dropped long after the actual running club was replaced by the not for profit business of 'fitness and health promotion' paradigm in place now.

Nothing is as good as it used to be is incorrect. It's a new business organization and has been for a long time. Not for profits are businesses without the mandate to create profit (or boons) for shareholders.

NYRR is a business.

A lot of the comments are about how nyrr runs its business are based on the belief it is still a club for runners. It is not a running club anymore.

In real life if you don't like how a store runs its business you don't go to that store.