Before the holiday, an article exposed just the tip of the iceberg of the murky PR-and-business currents running through today's marathon scene. We’ll take the opportunity to follow up and discuss this topic that many people feel compelled to talk about.
Of course, in today’s traffic-driven environment, it may not be only marathon events that are being swept up.After last year's ZY marathon, a media outlet began aggressively amplifying the event's shortcomings: chaotic organization and numerous on-site problems. Moreover, the frequency of posts was so high that it clearly had a specific agenda.Later, I heard the race organizing committee contacted that media outlet, but the cost of having the article removed was a five-figure fee.In fact, it wasn't just ZY. Many marathon events in cities known for stinky tofu or for traditional aged vinegar have been troubled and suffered losses from similar incidents. Some races across the Central Plains have even quietly disappeared, and that's not unrelated to being mired in public opinion.These gray practices of "pay-to-delete" and "malicious extortion" have put many events in a bind when it comes to media promotion, even gradually creating a defensive "guard against fire, theft, and self-media" posture. Events and media, which should be partners, have grown mutually suspicious and are wasting each other's resources.Originally, the media should shoulder the responsibilities of "promoting events, supervising events, and guiding public opinion": highlighting event highlights and conveying positive energy in the running community; supervising event operations and urging organizers to improve safeguards; guiding the public to view an event's imperfections rationally and fostering a healthy running atmosphere.But now, driven by the pursuit of traffic and profit, some media have made "traffic above all" their core guideline, deliberately amplifying negative details of events, manufacturing confrontational topics, and turning "public opinion" into a business.That's why some races have nearly a hundred different "self-media" outlets listed on their publicity boards — there are reasons behind that.As a large-scale mass event that often attracts tens of thousands of participants, its preparation and operation involve multiple aspects—course closures, supply provision, medical support, volunteer services, and more. With so many people involved, broad coverage and complex procedures, it is naturally impossible to achieve absolute perfection; some small oversights and minor issues are inevitable, and consequently some negative coverage is to be expected.A head of an events company said he thinks negative news about marathons is normal. But the key is: how people view these negative reports.He gave an example from a marathon organized by his company: “An event involves 28 government departments; with 20,000 participants, there will be 10,000 staff, volunteers and others providing services. With so many departments and so many people coordinating together, it’s very difficult for there to be no mistakes.”He gave an example: if you put those 20,000–30,000 people into an open space, what would happen within 4–6 hours? He believes there would certainly be fights, and there would certainly be people fainting. Some would go hungry, and some would relieve themselves in public. These problems are not caused by the marathon — they come from society itself; when people gather, all kinds of problems can arise.It's just that on the marathon course, because of intense media attention and many self-media outlets chasing traffic, the slightest stir will be deliberately amplified. So it's normal for problems to occur. In such a complex system, it would be abnormal if nothing went wrong.As someone who has worked in marathon events for many years, he feels, don't let the marathon take the blame for everything.It has to be admitted that in today’s media environment, online attention is not a monster; it is the basis for the survival of media outlets and individuals, and an important way for marathon events to expand their influence.As an important force in running-community discourse, independent media and influencers can serve as a supplement to event promotion and as a bridge to communicate with thousands of runners; seeking attention in itself is understandable.The key question is: what are the bottom lines for chasing attention?High-quality content never relies on malicious provocation, amplifying negatives, or fabricating facts to chase attention; instead it gains traction through relatively professional analysis, sharing, and guidance. These relatively positive ways of attracting attention not only enable the development of independent media themselves, but can make a modest contribution to the development of the marathon industry, achieving a win-win of "traffic and value".If chasing traffic by deliberately sacrificing an event's reputation and harming athletes' rights, it will only turn the marathon community into a shambles.This kind of "crossing the line" behavior harms organizers, athletes and the onlooking public, pushing the community into a "bad money drives out good" dilemma — those who aren't good at manufacturing conflict or stirring emotion get ignored by traffic, while those who rely on negative hype and malicious provocation can quickly gain followers and monetize. The resulting direction is: more people follow the trend, abandoning high-quality content creation in favor of the "public opinion business", causing the marathon sport to stray from its pure essence.The essence of traffic is "trust" — people are willing to follow and share because they trust the authenticity and value of the content; once trust is lost, traffic will fade, and credibility will gradually collapse.Yes, you can chase traffic, but not without limits; you can pursue reach, but you must not abandon value and principles. The value of independent media has never been about "how much traffic" it gets, but about "how much value" it creates.
Text: Trail Running / Editor:DavidImage: Trail Running Big Bang/ Visual: Max
