"Extractive, or regenerative?” is a very insightful perspective!
Most big news in the sport certainly appears to extractive, but as Matt said, more discussion or examples would be needed to sort it.
However, here is my way-alt perspective: "Who cares?"
Media cares. We love to discuss this; we're in our bubble. I'm not sure if 95% of runners give a shit. Except when they get annoyed if they can't get into a race, but in reality, there's thousands of races out there.
The pro's (people who want to make money) are working hard to change my axiom, but for now it remains true: Running is a participation sport, not a spectator sport. Which means we vote with our feet. We can do anything we want.
Today my son and I were above Zermatt on a 9 hour outing. This is a massive tourist town, with a massive promotional budget. We did not see a single other runner.
I'm not sure I agree with the "who cares" perspective. Evidently, there are players who care that the sport moves in a certain direction, specifically those who make good money out of it. Not caring allows these players to operate in whatever way they want unopposed. Today the effects might be sold out races or higher gear, but what happens if we start closing trails for the masses because some conglomerate wants it to own the area? What if nature areas or ecosystems get permanently damaged because use (either due to races or otherwise) far outpaces trail maintenance?
Love the idea of examining extractive vs. regenerative growth! If value is flowing bottoms up (e.g. from runners or the community to brands) vs. top down, that seems not great. However, if the entire sport is growing in a way that benefits runners and the broader community, that's a positive.
There's a difference between true growth (i.e. rising tides lift all boats) and value extraction or value transfer. I think the four questions you lay out are helpful in trying to assess which is which.
Good piece! I agree with Buzz's point that ultimately it's the participants' experience that matters, not the media/elite/brands side of things, but as long as people are trying to drive the sport in that "bigger money, more influence" direction (and they are) I think these questions are worth keeping in mind and I don't think the pushes happening for that should be dismissed.
you answered the questions inherently. runners wouldn't be complaining if the growth was best overall for the sport and keeping with the true spirit of the beginning. the growth is money seekers taking the old and making it what they want to maximize profits.
Brilliant Matt. 100% on point. Contributing vs capitalizing needs to be central question as the sport grows. I completely agree that it’s obvious which side of the fence various activities fall on when you are looking for it. Although it requires treading carefully it would be great to discuss examples.
"Extractive, or regenerative?” is a very insightful perspective!
Most big news in the sport certainly appears to extractive, but as Matt said, more discussion or examples would be needed to sort it.
However, here is my way-alt perspective: "Who cares?"
Media cares. We love to discuss this; we're in our bubble. I'm not sure if 95% of runners give a shit. Except when they get annoyed if they can't get into a race, but in reality, there's thousands of races out there.
The pro's (people who want to make money) are working hard to change my axiom, but for now it remains true: Running is a participation sport, not a spectator sport. Which means we vote with our feet. We can do anything we want.
Today my son and I were above Zermatt on a 9 hour outing. This is a massive tourist town, with a massive promotional budget. We did not see a single other runner.
I'm not sure I agree with the "who cares" perspective. Evidently, there are players who care that the sport moves in a certain direction, specifically those who make good money out of it. Not caring allows these players to operate in whatever way they want unopposed. Today the effects might be sold out races or higher gear, but what happens if we start closing trails for the masses because some conglomerate wants it to own the area? What if nature areas or ecosystems get permanently damaged because use (either due to races or otherwise) far outpaces trail maintenance?
Gornergrat!!! Epic. 🙌
Love the idea of examining extractive vs. regenerative growth! If value is flowing bottoms up (e.g. from runners or the community to brands) vs. top down, that seems not great. However, if the entire sport is growing in a way that benefits runners and the broader community, that's a positive.
There's a difference between true growth (i.e. rising tides lift all boats) and value extraction or value transfer. I think the four questions you lay out are helpful in trying to assess which is which.
Great work!
Good piece! I agree with Buzz's point that ultimately it's the participants' experience that matters, not the media/elite/brands side of things, but as long as people are trying to drive the sport in that "bigger money, more influence" direction (and they are) I think these questions are worth keeping in mind and I don't think the pushes happening for that should be dismissed.
you answered the questions inherently. runners wouldn't be complaining if the growth was best overall for the sport and keeping with the true spirit of the beginning. the growth is money seekers taking the old and making it what they want to maximize profits.
Both yours and Metzler's pieces are timely and thoughtful. Thank you for shaping the dialogue and moving it forward this way.
Brilliant Matt. 100% on point. Contributing vs capitalizing needs to be central question as the sport grows. I completely agree that it’s obvious which side of the fence various activities fall on when you are looking for it. Although it requires treading carefully it would be great to discuss examples.