Good Answer to the Dumb Pinnarello Ad

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that most advertising deals in stereotypes of one kind or another. There's simply not time or space in the limited format of most advertising (30 sec TV spot, 140/280 count Twitter post, etc.) to make a reasoned argument as to why customers should buy a product, particularly one like an e-bike. That leaves an appeal to stereotypes. Provide the trigger, and the viewer/reader will provide the rest of the argument out of their own value judgements/preferences/prejudices. That's advertising.

This past summer I did a story on ebikes for our regional sports magazine here in upstate NY, and I interviewed the owners of two local shops who have gone all in on carrying ebikes, and they BOTH mentioned sales to partners who want to try cycling and be able to keep up as consistent reasons for customer purchases. Given the reality--at least locally/regionally here--that the overwhelming majority of people who are already avid riders are men, and that the majority of the population identifies as heterosexual, the large majority of people using this reason for a purchase are going to be women of varying ages, but usually middle-aged or older.

So if Pinarello had simply used an older, less athletic woman model and different text that paints the women's aspect as being one of enhancing access for women who have never been into cycling like their partners, then it might not have faced the backlash that they did. But to many avid cyclists--who are mostly going to be men--the concept of their female partner getting access to the sport in a way that lets them both ride comfortably together is going to make sense. I think it's interesting that one of the LBS owners I interviewed said exactly that--it's far easier for him to sell an ebike when he paints it as an enhancement in access to the sport for those who may have never thought they could do it.

But Pinarello also violated what to me seems to be a rule of advertising these days. It's OK in an advertising for general media (not Velo News, Men's Health, Esquire, etc.) to portray a man (usually caucasian) as being weak. But woe to any advertiser who portrays anybody else as being weak, because you will get roasted.

Note that the ad with the man is still running, and their ad copy tiptoes around the issue.

No time to work out during the week, but I would never miss a Sunday ride with my friends. Soon I'll be able to fill the gap!

He's physically weak, but he's so successful and likeable in other ways that it's OK! (God forbid that his friends would be caring enough to actually slow down and enjoy riding with him.)

But there are no excuses in the woman's ad copy.

I've always wanted to go cycling with my boyfriend but it seemed impossible. Soon everything will become possible.

There's nothing there that implies strength in other ways. She's just weak because she can't keep up with her boyfriend--who apparently is a real jerk if he won't ever take it easy in order to ride with her.

Very interesting ads, and totally expected Twitterati reaction based on the ad copy. Pinarello brought this on themselves. It would be interesting to know the gender of the ad copy writer.

Outrage is very much in style these days.

BBD

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Perhaps conflating two different things. One being accepted marketing messages, the other being your or the view of "the common" experience.

The "outrage" machine is outraged because Pinarello is leveraging stereotypes for marketing reasons, and reinforcing those sterotypes. Sexism and ageism.

Why can't they just show a picture of the bike and have the same words not attributed to anyone at all (age or sex). Those with whom the message resonates will get it.

But to specifically imply that a woman needs a motor to keep up with the male masses is not only 1.wrong in many cases 2. assumes said women has no interest in training/riding the "real" way 3. furthers the exclusive nature of sport and cycling in general.

What's crazy is that this stuff needs repeated explanation.

It's not less powerful had they used and image of the bike and "I've always wanted to go riding with my partner, but they have so much more experience than me. Now everything is possible" - weekend rider, 24 (or omit the age all together)

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeDave

Outrage is very much in style these days.

/thread

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by pasadena

Twitter is exactly like a bike forum, except you are limited to 140 characters

Not anymore.

[rain dogs]

There appear to be two primary groups in this conversation. To use your terms lets call them the "outraged" and the "anti-outraged". The thing missing from the "anti" camp are actual members of those being marginalized. Based on the articles and comments out there the vast majority are all in the outraged camp - those being women. So, is it surprising the "anti" camp thinks it's overblown, why would they care, it's easier to dismiss it because it may threaten their established views. I think it's "anti" or "alt" that is quite in style, in fact.

as for being accused of needing to go for a ride or have "meaningful" conversations, this is a forum where members post, hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of comments - demonstrating much more outrage than I have shown - on topics such as:

• the different characteristics of the "big three",
• debates on what 'luxury' products violate some unwritten financial rules or norms,
• air pressure in a football,
• the sins of disc vs rim braking systems.

[Rueda Tropical]

It's a stupid campaign.

I see delivery guys on e-bikes and maybe some commuters. They are not interested in the bikes excercise - sporting value. It's just transportation.

If your significant other or buddy is a pro cyclist or elite amateur of any gender and you are not - cycling is a completely different activity for the two of you. Sure if you have a moped you can keep up but then whats the point? It's not cycling anymore.

If your significant other is a world class chess player you wont be engaging them in any games of chess for recreation. Maybe some AI company can pitch their chess app as an equalizer for the spouses of chess champions. Or not... because its a really dumb idea.

[Avispa]

Originally Posted by ultraman6970

The other day we went to a restaurant, an old couple showed up (maybe in their 70s+) and sat 2 tables down from us. Old lady sat and started writing cr@@p in her device... old husband did the same... hour later they were ready to leave, they were still in their devices doing cr@p. If they talked to each other for 3 minutes total in those like 70 minutes they spent in the restaurant is too much. Not a rant but is a thing of reflection, technology is cool but we are losing touch now... look around you.

Wow... Social media is really destroying society as we know it! I thought only Millennials and younger people did that... But people in their 70's!!!

Russians have a really cool trick when they go out. They all put their phones in the middle of the table, face down. The first one to reach out and grab it during the dinner/outing, pays for the bill for everyone! I really liked that...

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by Avispa

Wow... Social media is really destroying society as we know it! I thought only Millennials and younger people did that... But people in their 70's!!!

Russians have a really cool trick when they go out. They all put their phones in the middle of the table, face down. The first one to reach out and grab it during the dinner/outing, pays for the bill for everyone! I really liked that...

I do that with friends and family. I have left tables/meals when folks got on their devices and 'checked out' of reality.

We went out to dinner with my kids at a nice restaurant a few weeks ago and the table next to us had two couples in their late 50's early 60's all were on their devices and then they started watching a TV show at a loud volume!!! My 11 year old daughter, on her own volition and without warning to us, asked them to please respect the other people in the restaurant who came for a nice meal in a pleasant setting. They were embarrassed/offended the way people can get when you call out self indulgent behaviour that is rude to others. My kids 7 and 11 were both shocked that anyone would do that at a meal, especially in public. It was a proud moment for my wife and I who often feel that parenting is more about graceful defeats than wins.

[cmbicycles]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

***
My 11 year old daughter, on her own volition and without warning to us, asked them to please respect the other people in the restaurant who came for a nice meal in a pleasant setting.
***

Kudos to your daughter !!

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

There appear to be two primary groups in this conversation. To use your terms lets call them the "outraged" and the "anti-outraged". The thing missing from the "anti" camp are actual members of those being marginalized. Based on the articles and comments out there the vast majority are all in the outraged camp - those being women. So, is it surprising the "anti" camp thinks it's overblown, why would they care, it's easier to dismiss it because it may threaten their established views. I think it's "anti" or "alt" that is quite in style, in fact.

as for being accused of needing to go for a ride or have "meaningful" conversations, this is a forum where members post, hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of comments - demonstrating much more outrage than I have shown - on topics such as:

• the different characteristics of the "big three",
• debates on what 'luxury' products violate some unwritten financial rules or norms,
• air pressure in a football,
• the sins of disc vs rim braking systems.

Just saw this. Nail on the head. Thanks.