Good News, Folks! Road Race #'s Starting to Fall

I don't care about the entry fees. But that means fewer hobbyjoggers, less traffic on my running courses and more tracks available. Great!

Decreasing the supply of races will lead to reduced prices. It's simple supply and demand dynamics.

It's an added bonus if it bankrupts hedge funds in the game, such as the competitor group or whatever now runs the rnr.

jjjjjj wrote:

It's an added bonus if it bankrupts hedge funds in the game, such as the competitor group or whatever now runs the rnr.

They won't. Do you understand how hedge funds work?

I think they're all at the Color Run.

This is an interesting discussion. Let's say this trend continues and There becomes a significant decrease in the numbers of people running races, what economic forces would be at play and how would they affect entry fees?

Generally reduced demand results in greater competition between sellers which results in price drop.

However, the entry fee per person of a larger race, lets say 10,000 versus 1,000 should be less than a smaller race. So it could result in price increases.

Psychologically speaking a smaller core of runners might be less interested in the event type run with all the additional costs of amenities and races might move back toward simply competitive running events..........this could be put on cheaper.

Less runners, I'm going to guess will result in slightly cheaper entry fees. Race directors might have to work harder to entice runners to run.

Here are the color run "tour dates" if anybody is interested:

http://thecolorrun.com/events/

Nothing helps grows the sport that by celebrating decreased participation!

Congrats guys! We completely failed to couple the massive popularity of recreational running with that of elite running. Once again, we've proved ourselves entirely incapable of marketing ourselves. What an embarrassing bunch.

Anybody that races a lot has seen this trend the last couple years. Most race directors are really happy to keep numbers the same as the year before. A lot of races are down 10 to 20 percent. The other problem is the amount of races. I saw a few races last summer that had less than 20 finishers. A couple other races cancelled because pre registration was so low.

I doubt it will have much affect on prices but a lot of the small races especially those just run to raise money for a charity will quietly go away.

jjjjjj wrote:

Already in 2014, there was a small drop from 2013 after a 300% increase from 1990 to 2013. #'s across the board seem to be dropping further in 2016.

This is a good thing if it stems the tide of rapidly increasing entry fees. It's not likely to have much effect on the already rare and meager prizes.

http://www.runningusa.org/2015-state-of-sport-us-trends

Five things:

1. Running a road to some people is a one time experience, kind of like a bucket list item. For obvious reasons, at some point those types of participants start to dwindle as they have had the experience.

2. A lot of recreational runners are now doing adventure/obstacle course type races, which I assume are not counted in the road race numbers.

3. Running a road race use to cost about the same as a movie and popcorn, now they are the cost of a concert. A person might pay for a movie a couple times a year, but only do a concert once a year for example. There are a lot of young and low income runners who simply can't afford to do road races on a regular basis anymore.

4. As more and more road races are added and more people did them, the prestige has gone away. While running a half or full marathon is still marque, completing the shorter races does not impress as much anymore.

5. Middle aged men are becoming lazy, nowadays, 2/3rd of the road participants are women. I see the same thing when I go to the YMCA. A lot of men would rather spent time in their man care watching sports than participating; flat screen TVs are killing people. I see men with big beer guts complaining about the fact that their wife whose half their weight has gained a few pounds.

If the string of charity 5Ks being run weekly in my area beginning in April would pool their resources to host one race with 200+ runners, instead of 5-6 races with less than 40 each, I might consider giving them some of my money. It would mean the cancer researchers would have to cooperate with the dyslexia researchers and the humane society to advertise their event, but the would-be RDs could cut out a lot of duplication of effort, sponsor a higher-quality race, and probably end up raising more money than they would independently. As it is, there's no local race worth entering before summer.

jjjjjj wrote:

It's an added bonus if it bankrupts hedge funds in the game, such as the competitor group or whatever now runs the rnr.

Without seeing (or looking for) any numbers, I actually suspect those are the races that are thriving, while smaller, local races catering to people trying to PR are the ones on a downswing. Just a guess.

colder and wiser wrote:

If the string of charity 5Ks being run weekly in my area beginning in April would pool their resources to host one race with 200+ runners, instead of 5-6 races with less than 40 each, I might consider giving them some of my money. It would mean the cancer researchers would have to cooperate with the dyslexia researchers and the humane society to advertise their event, but the would-be RDs could cut out a lot of duplication of effort, sponsor a higher-quality race, and probably end up raising more money than they would independently. As it is, there's no local race worth entering before summer.

This^

As an older runner back in the day.....(yeah I know) there were less races, but when you showed up you knew there could be a good pack of decent competitive runners- we didn't have any where else to go!

Now there are like 15 races a weekend around my area, so you get a race with 1-2 guys here or there running alone. At least one guy in the area specifically calls around to find out where the other good runners are going so he can win!

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that last year there were more participants in obstacle racers (tough mudder, sparta, etc) than marathons.

Seems hard to believe but obstacle racing has exploded.

jjjjjj wrote:

It's an added bonus if it bankrupts hedge funds in the game, such as the competitor group or whatever now runs the rnr.

Pretty sure CGI saw the writing on the wall which is why they canceled some events and cut back to half only at others. The one RnR race I did last year moved to a smaller space for the expo and got rid of a lot of the guest speaker slots they had in years past.

What about the Double Road Race...how does this company stay in business, one wonders...Race directors, can you stay in business averaging 120 folks per race?

From their results:

6 under 100 Participants (Palo Alto, Kenya, SJ Baptista, Cabo, Bali, KC)

6 between 100-200: San Jose, San Francisco, Pacific Grove, Tokyo

1 above 200: Pleasanton (255)

One reason why RD's of many races are happy to keep numbers down is because the no young runners are stepping up to volunteer or RD.

Look at some of your good local club road races around your city..

The same RD's, the same organizers, the same volunteers...

Many in their 60's and 70's.

The Angel of Death wrote:

Nothing helps grows the sport that by celebrating decreased participation!

Certainly any professional runner isn't going to celebrate a reduction in the number of recreational racers.