Posts Tagged ‘runner’s world’

Runner’s World Publisher Performs Plastic Surgery

Rodale, the parent company of Runner’s World and other lifestyle publications, is having a Plastic-Free February. Their bloggers are incorporating and promoting the following three rules:

1. No buying or acquiring new plastic.

2: No cooking with plastic or storing food in plastic.

3: Minimize all other plastic use.

The plastics industry remains unimpressed, citing Rodale for “hypocrisy.” The Plastics Blog had this to say:

Some Plastics Blog readers pointed out that readers of Rodale’s magazines would have a tough time even making adjustments to their hobbies and leisure activities.

“I’d just love to see the subscribers to Runners World attempt to do their aerobic thing sans plastics,” one wrote. “I was in a running shoe store on Saturday and there were polyesters, polypropylenes, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, polyamides and poly- this that and everything else on display throughout the store!”

Lefty Hipsters at Runner’s World?

If the polls and this conservative pundit are to be believed, there will be a lot of long faces at Runner’s World tomorrow.

So the Rally to Restore Sanity was good, clean, hip fun.

And, probably, unnecessary.

Which is why I did something necessary after watching it for thirty minutes: I hit the gym, and worked on the quads.

They look great, btw.

And that reminded me of my past, at Rodale – a health publishing company that put out Men’s Health, Prevention and Runners World. While I was an editor there, I was one of three or four conservatives, out of a company of 1300 people. The folks there were mostly young, cool and sinewy- just like the crazies I worked with while running Stuff and Maxim UK. Again, I was one of maybe, two nonlibs working and goofing off there.

My point: every single day of my life was a Jon Stewart rally. Everyone around me was pleasant, usually white, and always reveling in their reflexive assumptions about the “rest” of less hip America. Yep, they were my people when we got hammered. But because of my beliefs, I was not theirs on election day. And they’d hammer me for that.

I’m Hearing Other Voices

The discerning folks at Runner’s World picked up my Tarahumara post from Tuesday and published it on their Other Voices blog. They are to be applauded for their good judgment, but gently chided for their spelling, since they failed to simply copy and paste my headline and instead typed, “The Tarahumura (sic) Diet Is Tough to Swallow.”

Now that I’ve hit the big time, the Running Is Funny giveaway is even more valuable! Take this last opportunity to enter. The prizes will be awarded on Sunday. Don’t get shut out!

Photos of Sarah Palin – Actually Running

By now you’re sick to death of this story, but there are angles that fascinate me, like how does a photo for the back page of Runner’s World end up on the cover of Newsweek?

Apparently Runner’s World didn’t give its permission, and claims to have had a one-year embargo on reprints. The photographer himself didn’t know it was going to be a Newsweek cover. The photographer’s agent, who was responsible for the Newsweek deal, isn’t talking, but his site has all 47 shots of Palin taken that day, including a couple of badly posed ones of her tying her shoe.

Meanwhile, now that Palin, Oprah, Runner’s World, Newsweek, the photographer and the agent have all benefited from the exposure, only one entity remains: Icebreaker, the company responsible for the apparel Palin is wearing in the photo. The company is working on a way to capitalize on all the free publicity.

And while everyone debates whether the photo is appropriate for the cover of a news magazine, I’m not sure it was appropriate for a runner’s magazine. Palin is a runner. So why didn’t the photographer hired by Runner’s World have her, uh, run? Or they could have gone with a race photo:

Or a candid shot of her out for a training run, like the one CNN used:

Or a composed shot with the Alaska background, like the Wall Street Journal used:

No cheesecake here. Just a fit, middle-aged mom out for a run. Good enough for me.

Dorky and Old Is OK If You’re a Runner

Dorky Old Runner

Runner’s World received an e-mail from a 28-year-old guy who wanted to know how to avoid the “dorkey old man runners look” (sic) before he reached the ancient age of 38.

The comments contains various speculations about the aforementioned look, and though I fit into the dorky and old demographic, I think we all know from first-hand experience not to judge a runner on looks alone. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one to have been smoked in a race by someone who looked like Grim Death, or Popeye, or Oliver Hardy, or Olivia Newton-John in the “Let’s Get Physical” video.

I don’t worry overmuch about how I look while running. I run so that I’ll look good when I’m not running. Anyone who ties ‘em up and toes the line is worthy of respect in my book. Besides, that dorky old runner might be Ed Whitlock.

Use Your Marathon to Help Runner’s World’s Bottom Line

If you received your July issue of Runner’s World (and God knows this is the first time I received an issue so early), you noticed a feature section about the Runner’s World Marathon Challenge. The magazine goes into great detail about how it works, and here’s a three-minute video promoting the plan:

Many of us are preparing for late fall marathons, so it’s intriguing. You’ll notice, however, that no mention is made in the magazine or the video of the cost, which is $130 for the basic online training program, and $250 if you plan to run the Richmond Marathon with the Runner’s World editors.

I’m an unapologetic capitalist, so I don’t have a problem with Runner’s World charging a fee. But if you want to make an informed judgment about signing up, you should be aware that so far the challenge is receiving more attention in the advertising and periodical communities than in the running community.

From MINonline:

The package comes in the wake of concerns that online advertising has ceased to compensate for declining print revenues. Many publishers, including The Atlantic, The New York Times, Gannett, Hearst and Time Inc., have begun openly considering paid models. But with the Runner’s World Marathon Challenge, Rodale offers users an offline service rather than access to proprietary editorial.

The Marathon Challenge is the most expensive and longest in duration of Rodale’s series of paid training programs for its fitness franchises, which includes Prevention’s 2-Week Turnaround (2 weeks at $40), Women’s Health’s Fit Coach (3 months at $45.50) and Men’s Health’s Personal Trainer (3 months at $45.50).

From Media Daily News:

The challenge promises to engage readers with the editorial content of the magazine and Web site and provide a high-engagement marketing platform for various sponsors.

From Adweek:

 As the ad-starved print industry scrambles to find new ways to charge consumers for its content, Rodale’s Runner’s World is launching a paid feature on its site where runners can access training programs to prepare for fall marathons….

The program is the first online paid initiative for Runner’s World and won’t immediately carry advertising, said Chris Lambiase, vp, publishing director of the magazine.

“This was created as an editorial product,” he said. “In an ad recession, we’re looking for other revenue streams. Once it starts to accumulate members, it’s going to offer a very attractive opportunity for advertising.”

You can make up your own mind, but I think $130 is already a bit pricey for online training plans, e-mails and encouragement. It’s altogether too much when it includes a contribution to the magazine’s “high-engagement marketing platform.”

After the Best Life debacle (or as my friends called it, “Girly Man Monthly”), it’s no wonder Rodale is looking for new revenue streams. I prefer to keep my investing and running activities separate.

Runner’s World Weighs In On Biggest Loser Scandal

The parent company of Runner’s World publishes Biggest Loser books and has a financial interest in the show’s image, so it was only a matter of time before we heard from them about the Dane Patterson marathon fiasco.

Runner’s World interviewed Patterson and others associated with the race.

By the time Dane reached a water stop past mile 16, they’d fallen way off pace. He was exhausted, and a sub-six-hour finish was not going to happen. One of the producers proposed driving Dane and Carli up the road.

“I was irritated,” Dane said, “but I just wanted to make everybody happy. I knew the show wanted a finishing shot.”

In my view, neither NBC nor the producers on site have any excuse for what they did. All of this idiocy simply to get a finish line shot. They could have used footage of Patterson celebrating with his family afterwards and made no mention of how far he ran, what his time was, or whether the course was still open. No one would have cared.

And how could NBC broadcast a show ostensibly about health and fitness and no one questioned the 3:53 caption at the end of the show? Did they fire all their fact-checkers during the writers’ strike?

As for Patterson himself, he must have been really dehydrated to think that climbing in a van at mile 17 was a good idea. But he’s not making it easy to give him the benefit of the doubt, no matter how apologetic he is now. Here are some of the things he told Runner’s World:

* “At the time I didn’t think it was a big a deal, but it was a bad decision. I understand that now. I realize how important that 26.2 miles is for runners.”

* “Honestly, I will cherish that medal for doing 23 miles.” (Patterson wasn’t disqualified until after he received his finisher’s medal. No one, so far, has suggested he give it back.)

* “Plus, at mile 17, it’s not hard to talk a 280-pound guy into taking a ride.”

Next week on The Biggest Loser: Tara swims the English Channel! Don’t miss it!