Rapha promotional vehicle from the Tour of Britain

Postmodernism

A business theorist named Peter Drucker once wrote that an enterprise has two essential functions: marketing and innovation. Until quite recently, this philosophy dominated the segment of the bike industry that focuses on road cyclists who could be described as “moderate-to-heavy users”. However, there now seems to be a backlash against the innovation part of Drucker’s dictum as newly influential players emphasize nostalgia rather than performance. But how far will this new aesthetic carry them?

… legitimate innovation in the road cycling market is harder and harder to achieve. After a flurry of advancements a few years ago, it’s now possible to buy an inexpensive, unbranded carbon frame from Asia that’s lighter and stiffer than pretty much every frame that was ever produced prior to around 2006. Consumers know this.

VDB

I think that VDB’s death tapped into many of the same emotions as this postmodern aesthetic. In some ways, he transports us back to the transition from pro cycling’s past to its present. Had his career stayed on track, he certainly would have followed his contemporaries into aero wheels, power meters, and the wind tunnel. He might even have adapted from the naked, unrepentant doping of his era to the more secretive cheating of today.

But it was never meant to be. Even as he hung around the fringes of the sport, VDB never truly joined pro cycling’s modern era. So our image of him remains that of his early years – brash, helmetless, smashing climbs in the big ring.

photo by n0seblunt

If I were, say, a plumber I would definitely give it a look, even if using the word Transit is a sneaky way to imply that its standard engine somehow “green”. Ford claims 22+ MPG, which I imagine is more efficient than a standard cargo van, but would it have been that hard to make a diesel? They told me that an electric version is in the works, but who knows…

Ford’s presence at Interbike is perhaps a further indication of the trends that bicycles have come to signify to the outside world. They’re environmentally friendly, inexpensive, and have (or at least are perceived to have) a now-stylish European/urban sensibility. Coincidentally, those are the nails that Ford is trying to hit with the Transit Connect, which in fact came out of the company’s European division.

In any case, you know that times have changed when Ford Trucks is exhibiting at Interbike and actual bike companies are not. More on that later…

I think the bike industry doesn’t really work very well. It’s too performance oriented, too exclusive.

We have one bike – a single speed and eight speed – and to put that into the bike industry machine, that’s a very small offering and I don’t think we’d get any visibility above the other bigger brands.

We didn’t want to make the Puma fixed gear because you feel like everybody’s gonna do that eventually… and everybody did.

9 months later…

Needless to say, I was surprised to see Puma exhibiting a fixed-gear at Interbike. Their stand was set up and run by  Biomega, the forward-thinking Danish bike designer that created Puma’s original and subsequent models. According to Biomega’s staff, Puma’s plan isn’t so much to enter the bike shop world as it is to sell bikes through boutiques and other non-IBDs of the kind that already carry Puma sneakers. Still, there they were – talking to bike dealers at the bicycle industry trade show.

My interpretation is that, despite the bike industry’s growing efforts to reach the new urban consumer, Puma sees interest in bikes increasing even more quickly. So they’ve changed their strategy from using the bike as a branding piece to trying to move a significant number of units through as many channels as they can, even if it means challenging what Antonio described as “the dominance of Trek, Giant, and Specialized.” I’m extremely curious to see their next move.

In case you missed it before, here’s my interview with Antonio.

Addendum

After some additional unpacking, I found some info that Biomega gave me about the Puma bike line. Here’s what the catalog has to say about the above fixed-gear model:

• Choice of modern, non-traditional bike colours
• Perfect for everyday use in the city
• Lightweight materials (aluminium frame)
• Designed by Biomega and inspired by the PUMA Bike II
• Available with or without a back wheel that can be reversed to switch between a single speed free wheel and fixie

TYPE
The PUMA Bike IIII mixes city bike features (dual brakes, free wheel mode, 28” wheels) and track bike features (handlebar, aggressive seating position, fixie mode) to create a new typology.

DESIGN
Smart, sturdy, and fast, the PUMA Bike IIII comes with track bike handlebars. The geometric construction holds the body in a forward, leaning position for an aggressive urban commute. In general it references a track bike, but is made out of aluminium for lightness and includes brakes for security. The bike comes with or without a back wheel that can be reversed to switch between a single speed free wheel and fixie.

PERSONAL NOTES FROM THE DESIGNER
HEAVY DUTY – I designed a chunky frame to make it adequate for daily urban grind.
FREE/FIXED GEAR SWITCH  – Be part of an urban fixie culture or be reasonable. I loved the choice this rear hub gives you. [Note: It looked a regular fixed/free flip-flop hub, not something like the SRAM Torpedo.]

More thoughts

The original Puma Bike has some really cool features, like a cable lock that also serves as the down tube. It wouldn’t be the right bike for me, but it would be for a lot of people. I liked that Puma and Biomega focused on utility and user-friendliness. But now they’re getting away from that approach and into more standard bike industry territory. Biomega makes some interesting, original bikes (more on those in a bit…) but this one didn’t stand out from crowded field of me-too fixies.

Due to a lack of pictures online from the event, I’ve used the fifth most interesting photo with a Creative Commons license and the tag “inspiration” on Flickr. Briefly, some pros and cons of the speed-dating format.

The time limit meant that a lot of people had a chance to talk about a lot of different topics and it was never boring. But many of the presentations felt rushed and glossed-over.

Even for the most articulate, engaging, and enthusiastic of speakers, being truly inspirational is a stretch. On the other hand, it led to some unexpected and interesting moments, like three guys from Apple not talking about Apple.

Openness was a frequent topic throughout the day. I enjoyed Jelly Helm’s presentation about being open to “No Casey Caplowe gave a cool talk about GOOD’s open-ended “[blank] like you give a damn” mission. Apple’s Chris Riley is open to being depressed – and I really liked his take on the craft of writing, which was a nice counterpoint to the usual stuff about social media marketing. Such as…

Jeben Berg from YouTube said that brands need to cultivate trust with their audience. But he also held up as an example of great social marketing this successful video that goes to great lengths to conceal that it’s an ad for Levi’s. Maybe transparency isn’t the key to everything, after all. Talking about social media marketing to moms, Neil Grimmer said, “she’s a part of our company and we’re a part of her life.” That seemed a little Big Brother-ish to me but whatever.

Who else was good… Emily Pilloton made an interesting point about how online media streaming is sustainable because it replaces manufacturing and shipping physical items. William Hall did interesting things with masked volunteers. Madison Mount talked about the nature of “good” itself. Adrienne Ciuffo had a cool story about making a documentary the way she wanted, not the way her client wanted. Angel Ciangi didn’t really go for inspiration but she did give an eye-opening intro on marketing to young multi-culturals (like the kids on Sneakerplay).

Most conferences are about answering questions. Take WordCamp SF, which I attended two weeks ago, for example. The speakers – who were mostly excellent – told you how to do things like make your website faster, how to improve search ranking, and how to blog more effectively.

Influx Curated was about asking questions, something it’s all too easy to forget the importance of. Here’s Ed’s recap.

But what’s most interesting about Reed Pages is its approach to advertising. According to Staple, there isn’t any.

Reed Pages does not have advertisers, only supporters and sponsors. The production of this publication is made possible by companies and organizations that provide us with grants and funding. We seek the assistance of groups that align themselves with the same ideologies that founded Reed Pages: Supporting a positive social contagion. Issue after Issue. Page after Page. When you get your hands on an issue, you’ll see how we show love to the people and companies that show love to us. We hope you find it like a breath of fresh air.

As you can see above, brands like QWSTION are given a full page with just a logo and the text, “This issue of Reed Pages is brought to you by [company]. For more information about [company], please visit www.[company].com.” It looks like the sponsors get their choice of black-on-white or white-on-black. That’s it.

You could argue that calling this anything other than advertising is just a way for Staple to differentiate his magazine from the competition. There’s some truth to that. But in the context of the differences between “advertising” and “sponsorship” – as those terms are commonly accepted in marketing circles – there’s actually some substance to Staple’s reasoning.

What’s the difference?

An advertisement is clearly delineated from the medium in which it exists. Within this container, the advertiser is free to deliver a message over which they have complete control. For instance, the same TV spot can run on a wide range of shows and doesn’t need to have a connection to any of them. To advertisers, the shows themselves simply deliver access to the audiences that the advertisers want to reach.

Sponsorship, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on the medium. The sponsored property is a distinct entity with which the sponsor is trying to align their brand. It’s not a blank slate where the sponsor can say whatever they want. By constraining sponsors to a simple logo and “We support Reed Pages,” Staple has created something that’s more similar to a logo on a cycling team jersey than it is to a standard advertisement.

What are the downsides?

“Advertising as sponsorship” wouldn’t work if Jeff Staple weren’t an icon in the community that his magazine addresses. Establishing a connection between the sponsor and Reed Page implies a connection between the sponsor and Staple himself. Not surprisingly, many of the sponsors are also Staple Design clients. So it’s not a model that any old magazine could adopt.

Furthermore, sponsorship’s biggest selling point is that it’s cheaper than advertising to an audience of equal size. So, in theory, Reed Pages’ sponsorship-only model leaves money on the table. Then again, the magazine itself is a promotional vehicle for Staple’s other ventures.

It’s also hard to ignore that Nike, QWSTION, and WeJetSet are both feature subjects and advertisers. The blurring of that line happens in all media, and particularly so in fashion magazines.

Who’s next?

Most magazines aren’t published by Jeff Staple. Most magazines wouldn’t be willing to constrain advertising messages if it meant lowering their prices. So I don’t think we’ll see the Reed Pages model too often. However, it does offer an appealing template for anyone who meets these criteria:

• Wants to put out a self-branded title
• Can’t afford to do it on their own
• Doesn’t really want to be in the publishing business
• Is already worth sponsoring
• Has easy access to potential sponsors

I guess that means I should start working on Kadisco: The Magazine.

Performance: adidas cycling

adidas kicks have graced the feet of cycling stars from Eddy Merckx to Jan Ullrich to Thor Hushovd. For much of that time, adidas cycling apparel was also on the market. But, for the foreseeable future, 2008’s will be the last crop of three-striped cycling good we see.

The backstory is that adidas acquired Mavic’s parent company, Salomon Group, in 1997 and put the adidas cycling line under Mavic’s control in 2003. Salomon Group was sold to a Finnish holding company in 2005, after which Mavic continued to design and produce adidas cycling products under a licensing agreement. Mavic declined to renew that agreement beyond 2008 and launched their own softgoods line this year. I have a fresh and crispy pair of Mavic Zxelliums, and they’re excellent.

Although it appears to have been Mavic’s call to make the split, adidas has gone quietly from the performance cycling business. Meanwhile…

Lifestyle: The Complete Ride

The Complete Ride is adidas’ Zeitfrei model with a pedal-gripping tread pattern and a stiffened sole. It was created as a collaboration among adidas, German sneaker shop Solebox, and streetwear blog Hypebeast. Bianchi was also involved but my sense is that they just kicked in a couple custom-painted frames for the photo shoot. Both Hikmet from Solebox and Eugene from Hypebeast have admitted that they don’t really ride, so I guess the design inspiration must have come from adidas.

The yellow/grey one is the Hypebeast version; it comes with “a cycling cap, messenger bag and canvas carry-all” and will be available exclusively through Hypebeast’s online store. The red/black Solebox colorway is exclusive to their store in Berlin and comes with a pump.

Takeaway

Here’s a graph of Google search trends that I used for a MASH-related presentation last year:

Clearly, there’s a fixed-gear bandwagon to be jumped on, but it may be a lot bigger than many in the cycling industry realize. But relevance requires a different outlook than what we’re used to. A design by a cultural influencer who doesn’t ride wouldn’t be the way to a launch a racing shoe, but the relationship between style and functionality is vastly different between performance cycling and lifestyle cycling. I’ll have a post on this theme later in the week.

(Eddy Merckx ad via Bobke Strut)

Point being, the bicycle isn’t something about which we have a common cultural understanding in the same way that many of us instinctively understand cars or baseball or that you’re not supposed to eat ice cream for breakfast. Granted, my example is an esoteric one. But the idea is that – beyond simply learning how to ride as a kid – cyclists rely on sharing individual experiences with each other. That’s why social media has been so significant in both professional cycling and the more utilitarian uses of bicycles.

Since my post about Twitter’s natural fit with the rapport between pro cyclists and fans, Levi Leipheimer has provided a far more succinct explanation than I ever could.

Anyone who enjoys riding a bike could have written that tweet; anyone who enjoys riding a bike can relate to it. That’s a really powerful emotional connection enabled by social media.

Making a more commercial connection, social media has driven the small and underserved market outside western Europe for television coverage of pro cycling’s less glamorous races. This spring, I’ve noticed a flourishing of blog and Twitter links to pirated online video streams and YouTube clips from little-known races like the Omloop Het Nieuwsblad.

When it comes to the more general usage of bicycles, social media has been perhaps even more significant. Outside of racing, cycling is a non-hierarchical culture where everyone learns from each other… and from people like DL Byron of the Bike Hugger blog. According to his bio, he’s never been a pro cyclist or even worked in the bike industry. But his personal experiences on the bike are more than enough to write a great post about The Bike Basics for novice cyclists.

It’s that time of the year, when I’m at holiday parties and being a cyclist, I get asked about a lot about cycling. And that’s cool. I don’t mind answering the same questions over and over again. Just like when it’s bike-to-work time or Seattle to Portland season, many cyclists just don’t know the basics we know.

I’m posting the typical Q/A here as a collection and asking our readers to add to the tribal knowledge with your tips and suggestions. Those can range from eating on the bike, to riding in the rain, to what you carry in your saddle bag.

Expanding on the idea of a collective knowledge, I’d add that many of us experience cycling almost as a set of secrets passed from person to person. It’s a culture based on one person teaching another, which makes it a perfect application for tools that simply amplify the reach of interactions like the ones I used to have with Sheldon Brown. Not every cyclist can receive personal advice from probably the most famous bicycle mechanic in history, but through social media every cyclist can share experiences with Levi Leipheimer, DL Byron, and everyone else who rides a bike.

The first interview that I posted in December was a conversation with Antonio Bertone, chief marketing officer of Puma AG. Puma has used bikes in their marketing for well over a decade, creating their own branded events and launching the Puma bike in 2007. Next up is Meredith Giske of New Belgium Brewing, the folks behind Fat Tire Ale and the Tour de Fat. In addition to being a great time, the Tour de Fat has created a whimsical, quirky image of bicycling that’s become almost a branded subculture unto itself. In this 8-minute interview, Meredith talks about that, sustainability, and the bicycle’s role in New Belgium’s story and personality.

My take: As with the interview with Antonio, the implication of what Meredith has to say is that the bicycle is a universal symbol that holds meaning for everyone, whether or not they consider themselves as cyclists. In addition, the Tour de Fat’s emphasis on playfulness runs counter to the traditional tent that grown-up cyclists should fight the perception that the bicycle is merely a children’s toy. Is there room in the tent for silliness? I hope so.

A final note: During our interview, Meredith mentioned that, in addition to the Tour de Fat, New Belgium tries to sponsor bike events that are non-competitive, grassroots, local, and that support bicycle advocacy. But the interview was recorded before the Tour of California, where New Belgium was the beer sponsor in the VIP tents – kind of the opposite of the events Meredith had described. I asked her about that and she responded:

There’s a lot of angles you can look at the value of an event from. For us, the three broadest areas are one, telling our brand story. Two, giving our sales team something to leverage at retail. Three, how big is the reach, both in quantity and quality (craft beer drinking audience, and size of the audience, both at the event and beyond via advertising).

Sometimes, we ring all those bells at once, and it’s a sweet, sweet sound. Most of the time, some angles we can hit harder than others, and the value of, say the retail tie in, is greater than the brand storytelling opportunity, or visa versa.

In the case of the Tour of California, the chance to tie in with retailers along the route was a pretty great benefit. The reach was solid, and the brand storytelling was not off the mark. Yes, we prefer non-competitive, grassroots events, but in this instance we decided to break our own rule to take advantage of those other benefits. In my opinion, as long as we don’t stray consistently or drastically from our sponsorship goals, there’s always room to be flexible.

Enjoy the interview, and let me know if you have any feedback or comments. Also, a few more links… New Belgium Brewing Blog, New Belgium on Twitter, tourdefat tag on Flickr. Thanks Meredith!

For PR firms – people whose job is to get editorial media coverage, as opposed paid advertising, by sending out press releases and the like – the demise of the newspaper carries with it the demise of one the industry’s most powerful tools: the pass-along rate.

Measuring the effectiveness of any marketing campaign is something of a black art. With PR, the key metric has been the impression, which is supposed to reflect a discrete instance of someone reading, watching, or hearing whatever you’re trying to promote. Traditional PR agencies have demonstrated value by building their client reports around gaudy, massive numbers of impressions.  Theoretically reflecting the number of people other than the purchaser that read a single copy of a newspaper of magazine, the pass-along rate multiplies the media’s circulation by whatever the PR agency feels is appropriate. I was taught to use 2.3, which I believe was selected because it’s large enough to make a big difference, small enough not to be questioned too rigorously, and appears to be based on some sort of research because it ends in .3 instead of a whole number or .5.

But when you think about it, it’s really a stretch to tell a client that all of these things are true:

• Every copy printed is purchased.
• Everyone who buys a copy reads it cover-to-cover.
• Then they give it to 1.3 other people.
• Each of those people reads it cover-to-cover.
• There’s lasting value in every one of those instances.

Because newspapers have room for so much content in each issue, it’s made sense for PR agencies to focus on them because their massive circulations, combined with the ol’ pass-along, yield lots and lots of impressions. Although there was no way to measure the impact of those impressions, there wasn’t a great way to measure the value of print advertising, either. So PR agencies weren’t at much of a disadvantage relative to ad agencies.

But now, measurability is one the key selling points of online advertising, while the metrics for online PR remain murky. A savvy advertiser will know not only how many times their ad was displayed and clicked, but what the people who clicked on the ad did once they reached the advertiser’s site. Meanwhile, a PR person whose press release is run on a news page can’t provide their client with any information beyond an estimate of the site’s total traffic and visitors.

So, as newspapers fade into oblivion, let us pause to note the correlated demise of some PR agency bullsh*t.