If Mary Cain is so Good, Why Doesn’t She Just Go Pro?

Posted by atlascoached on January 15, 2013
Posted in: More random than the rest. Tagged: , , , . Leave a Comment

The big news around the trackosphere this weekend wasn’t the Houston Marathon, Rupp’s season opener or any number of college meets.  As per usual, the track media and Twitter swamped us with their breathless metaphors and endless historical comparisons for Mary Cain’s 3000m HS record.  I’ve written before about our media’s misplaced priorities in covering the different levels of the sport, and this weekend seemed to be Exhibit 87 in the case of Track Media vs. Professional Athletes.  Somewhere around the time that I saw someone comparing Cain’s race to Wilt Chamberlain’s 100-point game, I asked myself my usual question: “How would this go down in another sport?”

I wasn’t that interested in figuring out what Cain’s 3K time equates to in terms of a high schooler’s single-game rushing record, number of 3-points made in a season or any other useless comparison.   She’s dominated every race at every level she’s competed at.  She has broken numerous American records for her age.  Alberto Salazar called her parents to get permission to coach her.  With a resume like hers and the attention she’s received from the highest levels of the sport, if she competed in any sport other than track, people would be wondering if she was going to forego college to turn pro right straight out of high school. 

So why doesn’t she?  She could still attend University of Oregon while training with Alberto and competing professionally around the world.  Think about it:

- Cain has outright decimated the other girls at junior meets around the country.  In college, they will be her teammates and competitors.  Will they be sufficient to maximize her training and racing potential, or will she be sneaking off to go run with Alberto’s elite females?

- As a runner in Alberto’s stable, she would be one of the 3 or 4 American track athletes with any leverage to negotiate a contract with Nike.  Plus, again thanks to Alberto, she’ll have that rarest of all commodities in track & field: job security.  She could likely make more as a freshman than many athletes who will be at World Championships this year; and after the shoe companies’ post-Olympic purge (conversations that start with “Nice medal, but what have you done for me lately?”), it’s never too early for Nike to start planning a marketing campaign around the pre-ordained starlet of Rio.

- It would be a great test case for the sport’s ability to conduct and present itself as a professional sport.  Are the Track & Field Athletes’ Association, the USATF, and the sport’s agents, administrators and marketers ready to handle someone who discards the traditional amateur development paradigm and instead runs straight for the money?  Could they adequately promote and protect her, making her into a star and a marketable personality, as befitting a once-in-a-generation athlete?

Like so much else on the road to professionalizing track and field, this is a long shot to say the least.  But the inadequacy of the collegiate system to produce world-class American athletes is pretty well established, and we are in a time of general upheaval and change in professional track and field where disruptions are welcome and innovation pays off.  If Cain went pro, maybe she’d even get some of the attention track athletes deserve from the mainstream sports media.  At the very least, by being a professional, she would at least be closer to deserving the attention she’s already receiving from the track media.

European Soccer’s Speech & Race Problem

Posted by atlascoached on December 11, 2012
Posted in: Soccer hockey tennis etc, Sport & Culture. Tagged: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment

I had written this a few weeks back, but by the time I made it post-worthy I started thinking that it was no longer current.  After reading this story, I now realize that the issue has gotten far more absurd – and dangerous, from a cultural perspective – than it was when speech codes were “merely” limited to the players and anonymous groups of fans.

************

"He came at me with a knife!"

“He came at me with a knife!”

A quick YouTube search for “worst soccer dives” turns up dozens of compilations of entertainingly ridiculous examples of soccer players dramatically hurling themselves to the ground after (sometimes long after) little or no contact by an opponent. The real victims of these theatrics, aside from the fans, are players who are genuinely injured during the course of the game.  Referees and other players – so accustomed to hearing “Wolf!  Wolf!!!” – seem to require a minimum 45 seconds of writhing from a downed player, just to be sure that he really means it this time.  Some leagues and players are worse than others (Iberia, I’m looking at you), and soccer leagues around the world are finally starting to crack down because they realize how damaging these dives are to the sport’s credibility.  Still, “simulation” remains one of the most under-enforced rules in the game.

Whether it is because players are realizing that taking a dive doesn’t quite have the bang for the buck that it used to, or they are trying to up the ante by getting a player suspended instead of merely booked, we have seen the draw-a-flag culture metastasize into something much darker with the recent allegations and policing (literally) of racist language across European soccer leagues.  Given the national, regional and ethnic fault lines that run beneath so much of European soccer, few people would be surprised to hear ethnic slurs hurled between fans and players.  This is even more the case now that one-time “national leagues” (such as the English Premier League or La Liga) are now becoming internationally diverse; and that national squads now have players that do not necessarily “look” the part (yes, Mario Balotelli is Italian).  Like politics, much racism is ultimately local, as the Tottenham Hotspurs are well aware.  Because their team is located in a traditionally Jewish section of London, the Spurs often face anti-Semitic cheers and taunts while on the road as well as from visiting fans of their opponents when at home in White Hart Lane.

Azzurri

Azzurri

 

League rules for sportsmanship and on-field conduct exist to give referees the means to punish players who engage in racist insults on the pitch.  Likewise, codes of conduct for fans in soccer stadiums allow stadium staff to eject fans who do the same (read the back of your ticket – it’s there). Enforcing these standards amongst the fans is made significantly more difficult by the size and anonymity of a chanting crowd, but leagues are taking various measures to change the fan culture of European soccer.  This task is difficult but not impossible: English soccer eventually managed to rid itself of the stigma of the hooligan era, although one could argue that the hooligan culture has just re-emerged in the form of the racism we are discussing here.

Lately, though, the English have taken a much more heavy-handed approach.  Having given up on changing the culture of the game, they are apparently trying to dictate the culture of, well, the culture by summoning the Metropolitan Police after these racial incidents to enforce what could only be described as speech codes within the stadium and on the pitch.  Players and fans suspected of engaging in racist speech or gestures are investigated for misdemeanors with names like “racially aggravated public order offense.”  For the time being, over on this side of the pond we would call this “saying stupid s**t.”  It may get you a yellow card, an ejection or a fine (fan or player)  – but not a court appearance.   Whether speech laws can change individual minds and the culture any more effectively or quickly than the normal course of cultural evolution is for a different post, and likely someone smarter than me.  But considering the level of violence that can occur in the course of a sporting event and still not warrant a criminal investigation (Hello, Zdeno Chara!), the notion that some jackass insult could result in a criminal prosecution is foreign and more than a little offensive to me as an American, a sports fan and a sportsman.

This trend may have finally jumped the shark with Chelsea FC failed attempt to levy charges of racism against referee Mark Clattenburg.  Even as a CFC fan I have no problem saying that Chelsea deserved to come out the loser on this attempt to exploit the anti-racial tactics deployed by the Football Association.  Chelsea knew the pain of running afoul of these speech-and-conduct regulations with the 5-game suspension of captain John Terry.  Whether they wanted to inflict this pain on a referee who they blamed for their loss to Manchester United, whether they wanted to exploit what they saw as the absurdity of these rules, or whether they were just lashing out in the most damaging way (currently) possible, they ultimately shot themselves in the foot in the court of public opinion and credibility.  Perhaps the next step will be for Clattenburg to launch a libel or defamation suit against Chelsea – the legal equivalent of him booking Chelsea for simulation.

Hopefully the Chelsea-Clattenburg incident will deter any other club or player from making a spurious charge of racism in order to gain a fleeting advantage over an opponent or game official.  The Football Association would do well to take a hard stance against this behavior not just to protect its members’ reputations from the lasting damage of false accusations, but also to not cheapen the impact of true acts of racial or ethnic animosity.  An even better outcome would be for the FA and other leagues to realize that while you can demand and enforce good sportsmanship on the field and civil behavior in the stands, no amount of rules, regulations or red cards – and certainly not a court summons – will change what goes on in someone’s mind.

Track’s Media Needs to Get With the PROgram

Posted by atlascoached on December 11, 2012
Posted in: Running, Sport & Culture, Sports Business. Tagged: , , , . Leave a Comment

We are nearly at the exact halfway point between the end of the 2012 baseball season and the day that pitchers report to spring training, and baseball websites and social media are packed with the latest news on trades, signings and injury updates.  There is no (and likely will be no) 2012-2013 National Hockey League season, yet I get numerous e-mails, text messages and tweets every day about the latest rumor from the negotiations, how NHL players are faring in European leagues, and the lockout’s financial and strategic impact on the league.   Following (let alone commenting on) European soccer is nearly a full-time job, even in the States; and the world of tennis – with its entertaining personalities and slightly dysfunctional exhibition schedule – is always entertaining, even if we are more than a month out from the Australian Open.

Against that backdrop of sports reporting, for the last 3 weeks the major track & field websites and Twitter streams have been providing us with wall-to-wall in-depth coverage of… high schoolers?

We cannot expect professional track and field athletes to be recognized and identified as professional athletes when the sport’s media covers high school events at the expense of the pro’s; and with the same level of passion and interest that other sports give their pro’s during the depths of the off-season.  Like any profession, athletes are athletes year round, including during the “off-season.”   Their personalities, their injuries and rehab, their training, their plans for the future, and their workouts are still compelling and newsworthy.  Even the business side of sports is important to the casual fan or we would not have articles and SportsCenter segments breaking down the intricacies of a baseball or football player’s contract negotiations.  Let’s face it – more baseball fans probably know who Scott Boras is than track and field fans know who Scott Bauhs is.

For a high school athlete in a mainstream sport to attract sports media attention is a prodigious feat.  They truly have to be a prodigy in their sport: Lebron James, Sidney Crosby, Venus and Serena Williams – a once in a decade if not once in a generation level of talent and drive.  In track and field, it is a semi-annual event for our niche media to heap a professional level of attention on a high school athlete.  Meanwhile, our professional athletes receive a high school level of attention from our media, and zero attention in mainstream sports media unless their “B” sample pops positive.  Equally embarrassing to the sport’s media should be its repeated failures to accurately identify those athletes that will not just survive in the sport but actually succeed in the professional ranks.  (Honest admission: I openly ate my share of crow when Rupp won his silver.)  Maybe the bar is just so much higher in mainstream sports, or perhaps it is easier in those sports to identify the youth athletes who will go on to greatness.  Either way, it reduces the sport’s credibility and harshly deflates the fans and the athletes when a high school or collegiate success story fails to match their hype at higher stages of the sport.

Defining down the pinnacle of achievement sends the wrong message about the sport to the athletes.  Not too long ago, the pomp and circumstance of a graduation ceremony was reserved for colleges.  Then caps and gowns made their way to high schools, and before long, eighth-graders were showing up to their graduation ceremonies in limousines and formal gowns.  One of the dangers of this phenomenon is that the graduating students will not see the event as one small milestone on a longer journey of education, hard work and achievement, but as the culminating event in their educational experience: “Well, we’re not going to have another chance like this, so let’s celebrate that we got this done.”  As then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2008: “Now hold on a second — this is just eighth grade… So, let’s not go over the top. Let’s not have a huge party. Let’s just give them a handshake.”  Track & field media sends a similar message with the exaggerated coverage at the high school level: “This is it.  You’re at the peak of your sport.  If you weren’t, someone else would be dominating the headlines right now.”

Building a profession of athletes is one of the defining challenges facing track & field.  The lack of professionalism in the sport underlies so many other issues – sponsorship logos, athlete finances, competitive opportunities and the like.  The business of the sport will not and cannot improve unless the culture of the sport changes.  No players’ association, race series or endorsement deal will convince fans or sponsors that track & field is a sport of professionals unless the sport’s existing community, including its media, starts acting like it.  Media both reflect and guide the culture they report – what message is ours sending, and what future are they shaping?

Logo Restrictions Lifted! Now what?

Posted by atlascoached on November 30, 2012
Posted in: Featured Posts, National Governing Bodies series, Running, Sports Business. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a Comment

Cross-posted at Flotrack.com

The USATF Rules Committee voted unanimously yesterday on Rule Change 18, which, upon approval at the general meeting on Sunday, will remove the USATF’s sponsorship logo restrictions.  This will conclude a battle that has spawned numerous Facebook groups, hashtags, conspiracy theories and, for better or worse, mainstream media attention for our sport.  But come Monday morning, the operative question will be: “OK, now what?”

Perhaps the most dramatic consequence of this rule change will be that athletes and the sport now have one less excuse to explain away the sport’s professional plight. People will no longer be able to say “Well we’d love to have more sponsorships – and we totally would – but USATF has these idiot rules, so…..”  Simply because sponsors can now have their logos seen on athletes’ uniforms (or bodies) does not mean they will be beating down our doors to buy singlet space.  We still have a long way to go to convince sponsors – big and small, global or local, traditional or innovative – of the value creation potential of track & field athletes and of the sport.  Just because a company can sponsor an athlete does not mean they should unless we, the ones selling our athletic product, can make it a worthwhile venture for them.  Otherwise, it’s not a sponsorship as much as it is a charitable donation (and not even a tax-deductible one, at that), and that won’t convince anyone that track and field is a professional sport.

The pressure will now be on the USATF (HA!), TFAA (hope!), the athletes themselves (help!) and race directors (um, hello?) to give the sponsors reasons to collaborate with the sport.  Prime real estate on the marquee athlete’s uniform will not produce return on investment for a sponsor if there are no competitions for the athlete, or no fans watching the event.  A sponsor will have no desire to link their brand and their corporate identity to an athlete that has no personal brand, an adverse personal brand or no sense of media savvy and presence.  And if the sport as a whole looks like a losing proposition, sponsors will be more eager to get behind the 4th iteration of a professional women’s soccer league than to subsidize track’s continued existence on Amateur Island.

I imagine there will be some recalcitrant old hats at USATF who would relish nothing more than sometime next year listening to an athlete coming to the USATF for money, and responding by leaning back, tenting their fingers a la C. Montgomery Burns and saying “But we removed the logo restrictions.  Wasn’t that supposed to make you a professional?”  No, Monty, ending the logo restrictions removed a needless roadblock on our athletes’ and sport’s path to professionalism.  Now that the road is clear we are free to create and sell value to sponsors and fans, and make money for our athletes and our sport.  In the large scheme of things, getting these rules changed will have been the easy part.

Value Creation in Professional Track & Field Contracts

Posted by atlascoached on November 19, 2012
Posted in: Featured Posts, Running, Sports Business. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a Comment

I’ve spent countless hours the last few months telling anyone willing to listen (and more than a few that weren’t) about the need to professionalize the sport of track and field and its athletes.  At first glance, the question of what makes an athlete a professional is easy: it’s someone who gets paid for competing in his sport.  But like any worker, athletes don’t get paid for the act of doing their work- they get paid because they add or create value for their employer.  Athletes do this by being the best at their sport – making the plays, winning the games and titles – which creates value for the team owners by driving fans to the stadiums, to the games on TV and to the store to buy the jerseys and shoes.  They also create value for their sponsor by competing under their sponsors’ logos, representing those brands off the field, and giving customers a way of identifying with the company through the athlete.

Creating and trading value is the sole basis for business, including sport.  Yet for the life of me, when I look at the majority of track and field athletes sponsored by a shoe company, I can’t figure out what the company gets out of it.  How does Nike benefit by conferring a minimal salary on track and field athletes across the country, other than denying these athletes to their (Nike’s) competitors?  Do they really sell that many more shoes because athletes that are unseen and mostly anonymous to all but the few die-hard track fans (who probably aren’t even Nike’s advertising target market, anyway) are wearing the swoosh?  I find it hard to believe that Nike – or any multinational shoe company, but especially Nike, those vilified money-grubbing fat cats – doesn’t have a precisely calculated WIFM (what’s in it for me) factor.  But really, what is in it for them?

The apparent lack of ROI for a shoe company sponsoring a track and field athlete makes these contracts look more like a grant than a business deal.  I sometimes wonder if Nike would have a better bottom line by converting their track and field sponsorship deals to a non-profit structure – at least then they would get the tax write-off.

Grants make up another small but crucial revenue stream for track and field athletes.  From small community groups up to the US Olympic Committee, a range of foundations support athletes in non-revenue sports.  As with any grant, the grantor expects minimal return, at least in any tangible sense.  For a non-profit, the opportunity to say “We supported Joe Athlete’s Olympic dreams” may be worth the outflow.  Since the athlete’s performance has little to no impact on the grantor’s bottom line – indeed, the bottom line was scarcely a factor in the decision – the grantor has little reason to develop a long-term relationship with any particular athlete.  Most, in fact, are designed to be one-and-done grants to help propel an athlete to the level where they can garner a true sponsorship deal.  The practical reality, though, is that the grant is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

I get so wrapped up on the issue of value creation in sport because understanding this is the only way we can hope to make track and field both professional and sustainable.  When an athlete creates value for their sponsor, it becomes the sponsor’s self-interest to expand and deepen their relationship with that athlete.  From the athlete’s side, the more value they can create both on and off the track, the better their relationship with their sponsor will withstand the natural ups and downs of a career.  When sponsors and agents see the athletes as nothing more than billboards for a logo, they are neglecting opportunities to aggressively market their brand to participants of a sport that are more than willing to pay up.  Even the non-profits that make grants to athletes can approach the matter with a strategic, revenue-generating perspective, as we are starting to see in other sports (most notably soccer, where Livestrong has naming rights to Sporting FC’s stadium, and Qatar Foundation is the presenting sponsor of FC Barcelona).  Rather than athletes living grant-to-grant and foundations dispensing money athlete-to-athlete, both parties could maximize the long-term value of the relationship by each determining their WIFM.  Whether it’s an athlete-sponsor or athlete-foundation partnership, the two parties will benefit over the course of a long-term contract that is based not just on performance but on a range of ways in which the athlete can promote the brand.

Right now, in the world of professional track and field, we are all losers – at least from a business and financial perspective. Sponsors and agents are failing to exploit the marketability and value creation potential of track and field athletes and the sport of track and field.  Athletes receive contracts that are solely performance-based and built on range-of-the-moment assessments and expectations, and therefore are equally shortsighted in their financial structure – yet they feel lucky to get them.  Further downstream, sports entertainment consumers see a product that is incomplete, under-developed, and as a result, less than satisfying.

Those of us closest to the athletes – coaches, agents, club managers and race directors – as well as the athletes themselves have to make it blatantly obvious to the sponsors that their adherence to the current model is costing them revenue.  This is our responsibility for the future, just as it has been our shortcoming in the past that we did not present our athletes as the value creators that they are.  Until track and field learns to speak the language of business, we can’t expect to move off of Amateur Island and into the realm of professional sports.

The “Why” Behind the Pro Track & Field Summit

Posted by atlascoached on November 15, 2012
Posted in: Featured Posts, Running, Sports Business. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a Comment

I wrote this up as part of an e-mail I sent this morning about the Professional Track and Field Summit, and I really liked the way it turned out….

The main thrust of the Summit is to take the next few steps towards making track and field a professional sport composed of professional athletes.  I want the takeaway from each of our three panels – and from the Summit as a whole – to be how athletes can best create value for their sponsors and their clubs through their achievements, personal brands and community marketability.  Too often, track and field athletes move through a series of one-and-done contracts that are susceptible to termination due to injury, a disappointing season or disagreements with a coach or sponsor; or rely on grants that may kickstart a career, but by necessity cannot be a long-term revenue stream.  This model is not sustainable for the individual or for the sport, as many of us have seen or will agree.  It is also a model that is unfortunately unique to track and field, to the sport’s detriment as we have consistently lost both athletes and market share to other sports and sports-entertainment options.  To that end, I am looking to frame the discussion and the deliverable post-conference product on giving athletes a business-focused approach to their careers.  What value can they provide to their sponsors: social media engagement, linking their personal brand to the corporate brand, actively personalizing the sponsors rather than merely wearing a logo at a race.  Personally, I fail to see how either party to a standard track and field athlete shoe contract benefits: the return on investment for a company like Nike or Adidas is negligible (as is the investment itself) compared to their other sponsorships, and the athletes still lack professional and financial security beyond the current pay period.  Second, what value can they add to their training groups through community engagement and representation?  As it stands now, training clubs that provide support to their athletes rely, in turn, on outside revenue streams – grants, sponsorship, or an affiliated running store.  It’s the same unsustainable athlete model applied to a group setting.  Our clubs and athletes need to work together so the athlete can add intrinsic value to the club, which will then return to the next generation of the club’s emerging athletes.  Finally, how can the sport and the athletes work together to provide competitive opportunities that are entertaining and engaging for the fans, and therefore lucrative for the athletes?  14,000 people ran the Austin Marathon last year, yet we didn’t fill a high school track’s bleachers to watch Leo Manzano deliver on a promised sub-4:00 minute mile (he ended up setting the Texas state record that day).  How do we convert these fans to spectators, ones who are willing to pay a small fraction of a race’s registration fee to buy an admission ticket to watch an elite track meet, so that our athletes can make a living by competing – the definition of a professional athlete.

Social Media in Specialty Running Stores: Surge Away from the Pack

Posted by atlascoached on October 26, 2012
Posted in: Running, Sport & Culture, Sports Business. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a Comment

Friends and customers often ask me “How does your running store compete with online stores?”  Sometimes I get the more pointed “Dude, why would anyone buy shoes for full price from you instead of at Amazon?”  I normally respond with some glib, self-promoting response about my awesomeness, and how said awesomeness has rubbed off on my co-workers.  Thanks to Finnish running shoe maker Karhu, I now have statistically validated evidence of my (to be fair, our) awesomeness as the main reason people shop at the store, despite regular price.

The Karhu Runners Industry Report examined purchasing habits and consumer decision making among runners.  49% of the 725 self-identified runners who took the survey purchased their shoes at a specialty running store.  32% purchased their shoes online, and big-box sports retailers were a distant third at 11%.  The online purchases were not sub-divided into retailer category, so it includes general e-retailers like Amazon or Zappo’s as well as running-specific sites like Road Runner Sports.  Employees’ running knowledge, product knowledge and customer service dominated the reasons for shopping at a specialty running store.  By comparison, consumers sought out online retailers for price and convenience.

None of the online running shoe outlets – general retail or specialty – address the knowledge gap that separates brick-and-mortar and online customers’ motivation.  RunningWarehouse.com, for example, is true to its name not just because of its vast selection, but because shopping at the site is closer to a warehouse than a retail experience.  Amazon and Zappo’s provide exemplary customer service, selection and price, but other than user reviews and vendor-provided technical specs, offer little to no product knowledge, and no running knowledge.  Road Runner Sports offers running-related content, but do not present the content in a way relevant to the customer experience; nor is it specific to the shopper and their locale

The Karhu results demonstrate the durability of brick-and-mortar running stores, and speak to their potential to survive against e-competitors.  However, they also identify online retailers’ competitive vulnerabilities, and point to a two-pronged counter-offensive for running specialty stores to directly compete with online alternatives.

    The two questions that running retailers must ask themselves are: How can we deliver service and knowledge at a value equal to the price differential between a store and a website to keep people coming in the door?  And how can we provide sufficient service and knowledge online to become specialty e-retailers competing with the “big box” online stores like Amazon?

Community Engagement: What’s in it for me?

Running stores typically engage with their community through social runs, running-related events, training groups and races, but there is no reliable way of determining if any of these activities drive sales.  Until recently, running stores could emphasize consumer awareness and community outreach with little regard for the impact on sales.  Simply maintaining the traditions and camaraderie of the running fraternity was sufficient for many small, family-owned stores.  (Incidentally, this non-profit mentality extends to a running club’s ventures in elite race production and athlete management, as exemplified by the criticism of Mary Wittenberg in this article).  However, the recent acquisitions of City Sports and The Running Company (now Running Specialty Group) by professional investment and management corporations have injected a stricter sense of bottom line and return-on-investment into running store operations.  Stores will increasingly be pushed out of their comfort zone and held accountable to justify these operations, especially those that require significant investment such as race sponsorship.

Extending the store experience into social media

Social media facilitates this assessment and also addresses the second strategic question we posed above.  Social media engagement, as opposed to merely a social media presence, allows running retailers to extend the in-store customer experience beyond the walls of the store, and get direct customer response to the store’s service and initiatives.  Everything that running store employees say, do and provide – short of handing product to a customer – can be replicated in social communications.  Suggesting a product in response to a specific query or description, sharing local racing news, generating enthusiasm about an upcoming event, recommending a training group or sports medicine provider … all the knowledge and service that motivates a running store’s shoppers can be delivered via social media.  And without sacrificing the individualized attention of a face-to-face interaction, social communications can be curated and shared for future customers to expand the conversation.  Instead of the store being the single source of running-related information, they become the knowledge hub for the running community.  By continuously updating and implementing their social communications strategy, the store can simultaneously decentralize yet strengthen its role in the running community.  Tracking social communications will provide the store with reliable and usable data about the success of their initiatives.  This data will highlight the activities that engage the largest number of customers and that have the deepest level of engagement with customers; will identify the most significant influencers among the store’s customers and partners; and will give even the most resistant holdout an illustration of the intersection between impression, influence and income.

The Karhu Runners Survey points the way for a specialty running store to take the offensive against its local brick-and-mortar competitors and e-retailers.  A specialty running store may never be able to compete with Zappo’s on price or selection, but through social media engagement it can add the necessary value to its online store to attract convenience-motivated online shoppers.  Social media also provides the tools to assess the store’s return-on-investment and influence-per-investment for traditional running store outreach initiatives, which will allow the store to adapt its activities to maximize both influence and ROI.  Sitting in the pack and drafting may be smart tactics in running races, but aggressive leading from the front is the way to win for running stores.