Would You Pay For This?

A snip of a Facebook advertisement for "Beta" magazine.

 In 2006 or so, I was invited to go to a Gary Fisher/Trek press camp as part of "Twentynineinches.com", the 29"er MTB site I used to write for and was editor for a time. Back then, the owner, Tim, took me and we both attended this press camp as the only purely internet based writers in attendance. 

The rest of the room at this presentation was filled with print magazine editors and writers. People you've probably read, and people whose names you'd recognize yet today as being 'big time' journos. 

When the presentation was over, and one of those big-timers turned to Tim, my partner, and asked us when we'd be getting the story out to our audience. Tim smugly replied, "We already have it up.", as he turned his laptop around to show this man and a few others our website story which he wrote in real time during the presentation. 

This occurrence, to my mind, was the turning point. It was when web based news started to overtake traditional print media, eventually disrupting that industry to the point that many print magazines, newspapers, and periodicals went by the wayside. No longer would audiences be satisfied to have to wait on news. Not when it could be had instantaneously, or nearly so. Furthermore, 'news' was democratized to the point that when social media took a hold, everyone with a smart phone became a news gatherer/story teller. No longer would the world have a defined set of professionals whose dissemination of information was somewhat reliable. 'The News' basically became The Wild, Wild West. You probably get that by now......

I say all this because recently a new publication, online only, as far as I know, dubbed "Beta", rose from the ashes of "Bike" magazine, and hit the ground with a very controversial introductory post which drew the ire of many in the cycling journo ranks. Basically, it was very tone-deaf to current social issues and was steeped in misogynistic bike culture from yore. (Some would say it persists yet today, and I ain't arguing that point.) An apology was posted, and so I am not going to tread that ground here. Besides, that's not the real point.

The thing about "Beta", besides a weird name that does not evoke mountain biking at all to me, is that most of their content is behind a paywall. (Means ya gotta pay ta see it, dig?) I get that in these times you might want a paywall, because so much information is free, that writers have a difficult time getting paid for anything they create as content these days. And by 'writers' I mean anyone pounding a keyboard with regularity that has access to a working internet connection. Including me, by the way.

Now for context, I do subscribe to a site with a paywall called "The Athletic", which is where I followed one of my favorite NASCAR writers when that site hired him. My experience has been that one; I paid far too much since "The Athletic" regularly runs super-discounted subscriptions and I paid full boat. Secondly, that site often puts articles outside the paywall for general views and you never know which articles are what- pay or free- so it seems a bit cheap to do that to your subscribers. Thirdly, due to the previous point, I don't feel I am getting much value for my subscription, and I can get nearly identical coverage for free from outside that site.

So, this begs a question: Why pay for information I can get for free? Sure, there may be some exclusives given to "Beta" by different companies introducing new things, but typically, those are spread around to several outlets, so at some point you are going to be able to skirt that paywall easily. And of course, there is nothing to stop a paying reader to be the one to squawk on social media to gain some 'cred-likes' from their so-called 'friends' roster. And at that point, the cat is outta the bag anyway. 

Maybe you get some creativity and awesome imagery, or maybe you get access to things, or gifts, like what some folks get on Patreon for being supporters to a company, person, or whatever. Maybe the writers at "Beta" are so compelling and talented that I would just have to see what they are writing for fear of missing out. Maybe.... "Beta's" Editor in Chief, Nicole Formosa, was quoted in a recent article online posted by "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News" where she addresses this point, "My team is tasked with a mandate to create dynamic content and introduce a variety of services and experiences — both virtual and in-person — that create value for POM's (Pocket Outdoor Media, the parent company of "Beta") Active Pass membership. To that end, our site is launching with a mix of high-impact video, beautiful photography, in-depth gear reviews (including the first video from our annual buyers' guide, The Beta Tests) and the kind of storytelling that will separate us from the competition."

Again- this doesn't seem compelling enough to my mind to pay for non-print info that isn't really anything different than I can get anywhere else, many times from "Beta's" own peers.  In my opinion, this is going to be a big climb. Can they make it?

Hmm.... Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I'd say that at this point, I'm not very convinced this will work.

Would You Pay For This?

A snip of a Facebook advertisement for "Beta" magazine.

 In 2006 or so, I was invited to go to a Gary Fisher/Trek press camp as part of "Twentynineinches.com", the 29"er MTB site I used to write for and was editor for a time. Back then, the owner, Tim, took me and we both attended this press camp as the only purely internet based writers in attendance. 

The rest of the room at this presentation was filled with print magazine editors and writers. People you've probably read, and people whose names you'd recognize yet today as being 'big time' journos. 

When the presentation was over, and one of those big-timers turned to Tim, my partner, and asked us when we'd be getting the story out to our audience. Tim smugly replied, "We already have it up.", as he turned his laptop around to show this man and a few others our website story which he wrote in real time during the presentation. 

This occurrence, to my mind, was the turning point. It was when web based news started to overtake traditional print media, eventually disrupting that industry to the point that many print magazines, newspapers, and periodicals went by the wayside. No longer would audiences be satisfied to have to wait on news. Not when it could be had instantaneously, or nearly so. Furthermore, 'news' was democratized to the point that when social media took a hold, everyone with a smart phone became a news gatherer/story teller. No longer would the world have a defined set of professionals whose dissemination of information was somewhat reliable. 'The News' basically became The Wild, Wild West. You probably get that by now......

I say all this because recently a new publication, online only, as far as I know, dubbed "Beta", rose from the ashes of "Bike" magazine, and hit the ground with a very controversial introductory post which drew the ire of many in the cycling journo ranks. Basically, it was very tone-deaf to current social issues and was steeped in misogynistic bike culture from yore. (Some would say it persists yet today, and I ain't arguing that point.) An apology was posted, and so I am not going to tread that ground here. Besides, that's not the real point.

The thing about "Beta", besides a weird name that does not evoke mountain biking at all to me, is that most of their content is behind a paywall. (Means ya gotta pay ta see it, dig?) I get that in these times you might want a paywall, because so much information is free, that writers have a difficult time getting paid for anything they create as content these days. And by 'writers' I mean anyone pounding a keyboard with regularity that has access to a working internet connection. Including me, by the way.

Now for context, I do subscribe to a site with a paywall called "The Athletic", which is where I followed one of my favorite NASCAR writers when that site hired him. My experience has been that one; I paid far too much since "The Athletic" regularly runs super-discounted subscriptions and I paid full boat. Secondly, that site often puts articles outside the paywall for general views and you never know which articles are what- pay or free- so it seems a bit cheap to do that to your subscribers. Thirdly, due to the previous point, I don't feel I am getting much value for my subscription, and I can get nearly identical coverage for free from outside that site.

So, this begs a question: Why pay for information I can get for free? Sure, there may be some exclusives given to "Beta" by different companies introducing new things, but typically, those are spread around to several outlets, so at some point you are going to be able to skirt that paywall easily. And of course, there is nothing to stop a paying reader to be the one to squawk on social media to gain some 'cred-likes' from their so-called 'friends' roster. And at that point, the cat is outta the bag anyway. 

Maybe you get some creativity and awesome imagery, or maybe you get access to things, or gifts, like what some folks get on Patreon for being supporters to a company, person, or whatever. Maybe the writers at "Beta" are so compelling and talented that I would just have to see what they are writing for fear of missing out. Maybe.... "Beta's" Editor in Chief, Nicole Formosa, was quoted in a recent article online posted by "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News" where she addresses this point, "My team is tasked with a mandate to create dynamic content and introduce a variety of services and experiences — both virtual and in-person — that create value for POM's (Pocket Outdoor Media, the parent company of "Beta") Active Pass membership. To that end, our site is launching with a mix of high-impact video, beautiful photography, in-depth gear reviews (including the first video from our annual buyers' guide, The Beta Tests) and the kind of storytelling that will separate us from the competition."

Again- this doesn't seem compelling enough to my mind to pay for non-print info that isn't really anything different than I can get anywhere else, many times from "Beta's" own peers.  In my opinion, this is going to be a big climb. Can they make it?

Hmm.... Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I'd say that at this point, I'm not very convinced this will work.

Musings On Media

I heard over the weekend that "Bike" magazine was shuttered by its parent company, reportedly to never see the light of day again. It's another in an ever growing list of niche publication shutdowns. "Dirt Rag" was shuttered last year, now this, and there have been others I am not remembering here. They have been saying 'print is dead" for years, and I suppose things like this latest shut-down are only stoking those thoughts. But like most things in life, it is never as simple as a cliche' and generally is a lot more nuanced than what you'd think. 

To be honest, I feel a bit responsible here. I mean, what I have been doing for the better part of fifteen years is what you normally would have only found in print, for a price, and never for free. You also would have only very limited access to content, since, well.....print takes a long time to produce. The format is akin home cooking- it's almost always better than fast food, but who has the time and the know-how to do it? Plus, we could be eating this now and that later without the hassles.  I have a new post every day. You didn't even get that with newspapers. Magazines? Yeah..... See ya in 28 days. Maybe more.

More is better, or so some think. 24-7 access is cool. Websites clamor to be 'first' with the latest news and reviews. Advertising was cheaper on digital media, (not sure about nowadays), and so brands and marketers went with the least expensive options. Then along came 'influencers' and brands found ways to get the word out about their stuff without fears of negative reviews and without having to pay advertising fees. Suddenly professional writers and photographers were out of jobs. Big corporate holding companies bought up floundering mag titles and liquidated, or outright shutdown everything but the bones of the operations. "Bike" reportedly had four employees at the time of its shutdown. Word was that COVID had something to do with it. Look for that 'excuse' to get well-worn as we approach 2021. 

Andy and I were bouncing ideas off each other regarding monetizing content for RidingGravel.com or on some other platform. I told him it would all hinge on an advertising revenue, or a direct subscription based format, like Patreon, but that it wuld be a hard road since most folks see what I do as being 'free' so why pay? Plus, when there are others in the same space doing everything free, how do you rise above and give value enough to the point that people would be willing to have monthly withdrawals on their credit card to support you? 

And the effort you would have to put in would be immense. That's really what it boils down to. If I am willing to go all in, quit my job, and sacrifice personal and family time, yeah....maybe then it would work. But that's a steep price to pay. In my mind, that's what it would take though. 

Also something else to consider is the unimaginable amount of information overload that is already at our fingertips. Do we really need more? It's kind of like gluttony, or pollution. All this information. Maybe we need to take the nearest exit off the super-highway and find a nice, quiet dirt road. 

But back to the print mags and "Bike" magazine in particular. I recall my friend Will Ritchie telling me that he left WTB to take an opportunity with "Bike" when it came up to him as an option several years ago. He told me it was his 'dream job', (an example of his work can be seen here), and then later corporate cuts left him on the outside looking in, and now the final death blow has seemingly been rendered. I cannot imagine the pain Will must feel over this, not to mention the rest of that crew's feelings. My heart goes out to those folks. 

Is print dead? Maybe. They said Kindle would kill the bookstores and books would be obsolete, yet the darn things are still being sold at book stores, of all things. Print magazines are also not "dead", but the traditional model isn't working either. In my wildest dreams I don't see magazines going away, but something has to change for the platform to work. And maybe that's going artisanal or bi-yearly, or some form of mixed media like YouTube and print. Hard to say. I do know that I support a guitar based publication called the "Fretboard Journal" by subscribing to their magazine and by listening to their podcasts. I also am a Patreon supporter of one of the podcasts. Maybe this is the way forward for print media. 

I don't have the answers, but one thing is for sure- media and how we consume it will be changing and ten years from now, who knows how it will look? I know that back fifteen years ago it sure looked a whole lot different than it does now. I've got a lot more to say about this subject, but that will have to wait for another day. These are just my jumbled thoughts on the subject as it relates to cycling. 

Thanks for reading.

Musings On Media

I heard over the weekend that "Bike" magazine was shuttered by its parent company, reportedly to never see the light of day again. It's another in an ever growing list of niche publication shutdowns. "Dirt Rag" was shuttered last year, now this, and there have been others I am not remembering here. They have been saying 'print is dead" for years, and I suppose things like this latest shut-down are only stoking those thoughts. But like most things in life, it is never as simple as a cliche' and generally is a lot more nuanced than what you'd think. 

To be honest, I feel a bit responsible here. I mean, what I have been doing for the better part of fifteen years is what you normally would have only found in print, for a price, and never for free. You also would have only very limited access to content, since, well.....print takes a long time to produce. The format is akin home cooking- it's almost always better than fast food, but who has the time and the know-how to do it? Plus, we could be eating this now and that later without the hassles.  I have a new post every day. You didn't even get that with newspapers. Magazines? Yeah..... See ya in 28 days. Maybe more.

More is better, or so some think. 24-7 access is cool. Websites clamor to be 'first' with the latest news and reviews. Advertising was cheaper on digital media, (not sure about nowadays), and so brands and marketers went with the least expensive options. Then along came 'influencers' and brands found ways to get the word out about their stuff without fears of negative reviews and without having to pay advertising fees. Suddenly professional writers and photographers were out of jobs. Big corporate holding companies bought up floundering mag titles and liquidated, or outright shutdown everything but the bones of the operations. "Bike" reportedly had four employees at the time of its shutdown. Word was that COVID had something to do with it. Look for that 'excuse' to get well-worn as we approach 2021. 

Andy and I were bouncing ideas off each other regarding monetizing content for RidingGravel.com or on some other platform. I told him it would all hinge on an advertising revenue, or a direct subscription based format, like Patreon, but that it wuld be a hard road since most folks see what I do as being 'free' so why pay? Plus, when there are others in the same space doing everything free, how do you rise above and give value enough to the point that people would be willing to have monthly withdrawals on their credit card to support you? 

And the effort you would have to put in would be immense. That's really what it boils down to. If I am willing to go all in, quit my job, and sacrifice personal and family time, yeah....maybe then it would work. But that's a steep price to pay. In my mind, that's what it would take though. 

Also something else to consider is the unimaginable amount of information overload that is already at our fingertips. Do we really need more? It's kind of like gluttony, or pollution. All this information. Maybe we need to take the nearest exit off the super-highway and find a nice, quiet dirt road. 

But back to the print mags and "Bike" magazine in particular. I recall my friend Will Ritchie telling me that he left WTB to take an opportunity with "Bike" when it came up to him as an option several years ago. He told me it was his 'dream job', (an example of his work can be seen here), and then later corporate cuts left him on the outside looking in, and now the final death blow has seemingly been rendered. I cannot imagine the pain Will must feel over this, not to mention the rest of that crew's feelings. My heart goes out to those folks. 

Is print dead? Maybe. They said Kindle would kill the bookstores and books would be obsolete, yet the darn things are still being sold at book stores, of all things. Print magazines are also not "dead", but the traditional model isn't working either. In my wildest dreams I don't see magazines going away, but something has to change for the platform to work. And maybe that's going artisanal or bi-yearly, or some form of mixed media like YouTube and print. Hard to say. I do know that I support a guitar based publication called the "Fretboard Journal" by subscribing to their magazine and by listening to their podcasts. I also am a Patreon supporter of one of the podcasts. Maybe this is the way forward for print media. 

I don't have the answers, but one thing is for sure- media and how we consume it will be changing and ten years from now, who knows how it will look? I know that back fifteen years ago it sure looked a whole lot different than it does now. I've got a lot more to say about this subject, but that will have to wait for another day. These are just my jumbled thoughts on the subject as it relates to cycling. 

Thanks for reading.

Dirt Rag Reaches The End Of The Trail

"Dirt Rag" gave me my first break and published me, making me a "pro", I suppose.

 Dirt Rag Reaches The End Of The Trail:

Wednesday night news broke on Twitter that the venerable mountain bike publication, "Dirt Rag", was shuttering operations after a 30 year run.

It is hard to explain to young people what the impact of this publication upon mountain bikers was back in the 90's. So......I won't even try. You had to be there. This publication kicked butt then. Later on they kind of cruised and when all the other magazines went away, or to digital, "Dirt Rag" carried on. The 25th anniversary edition rocked, and in a way, it was an early requiem, a send off that we didn't know was a send off.

Subsequent years found the "Rag" floundering. Advertisers left, the page numbers dwindled, articles became bland and lacked the verve, irreverence, and vigor that the publication was marked for in years past. You could kind of feel that the wheels were coming off in the last couple of years. Changes in editors and style couldn't bring it back. It was just time, I guess, to end it.

The magazine meant a lot to me. They gave me a chance to write a feature story, and not just once, but twice. They talked about gravel grinding ten years ago, back when no other major cycling publication would give gravel a mention. The publication championed 29"ers starting in 1999! You could count on the "Rag" doing justice to any new trend, no matter how bizarre or off track. And you know what? They were right on more times than not.

I've had the pleasure of knowing several former "Dirt Rag" employees, writers, and editors. I've met Maurice Tierney, the founder who is a member of the Mountain Bike Hall Of Fame. The whole line of the members of that publication were committed and bled the passion for cycling into the pages of "Dirt Rag". Loosing this publication marks the end of an era.

Thanks for the ride, "Dirt Rag", it still is a Great Big World, and we all should still keep on riding on it.

Dirt Rag Reaches The End Of The Trail

"Dirt Rag" gave me my first break and published me, making me a "pro", I suppose.

 Dirt Rag Reaches The End Of The Trail:

Wednesday night news broke on Twitter that the venerable mountain bike publication, "Dirt Rag", was shuttering operations after a 30 year run.

It is hard to explain to young people what the impact of this publication upon mountain bikers was back in the 90's. So......I won't even try. You had to be there. This publication kicked butt then. Later on they kind of cruised and when all the other magazines went away, or to digital, "Dirt Rag" carried on. The 25th anniversary edition rocked, and in a way, it was an early requiem, a send off that we didn't know was a send off.

Subsequent years found the "Rag" floundering. Advertisers left, the page numbers dwindled, articles became bland and lacked the verve, irreverence, and vigor that the publication was marked for in years past. You could kind of feel that the wheels were coming off in the last couple of years. Changes in editors and style couldn't bring it back. It was just time, I guess, to end it.

The magazine meant a lot to me. They gave me a chance to write a feature story, and not just once, but twice. They talked about gravel grinding ten years ago, back when no other major cycling publication would give gravel a mention. The publication championed 29"ers starting in 1999! You could count on the "Rag" doing justice to any new trend, no matter how bizarre or off track. And you know what? They were right on more times than not.

I've had the pleasure of knowing several former "Dirt Rag" employees, writers, and editors. I've met Maurice Tierney, the founder who is a member of the Mountain Bike Hall Of Fame. The whole line of the members of that publication were committed and bled the passion for cycling into the pages of "Dirt Rag". Loosing this publication marks the end of an era.

Thanks for the ride, "Dirt Rag", it still is a Great Big World, and we all should still keep on riding on it.

Setting The Record Straight

Certain details- Important ones- are lost on "The Media". I won't let them forget.

Long time readers here know all about this gravel scene. You've been with me every step of the way if you've been reading here for ten plus years. You know the drill.

However; since gravel grinding has become "THE" thing these days, a lot more twisting of stories, false claims, and downright ignorant "knowledge filling" comments are being noted by myself and my long time friends. Sometimes I consider the source and let it go. I cannot enlighten everybody to what really went down. That said, every so often I notice how the chains get yanked by marketers, podcasters, and especially media wonks. I see total fabrications, lack of depth of research, and "spinning" on stories and when enough pile up, I have to let off some steam. Today is one of those days.

First, the "twisting" of story lines. I will address this again on "Friday News And Views", so I won't get too far on this today. However; when you read in many online and print media publications about "the gravel scene", and then read several lines about how "Pro/roadie" things are possibly going to "ruin gravel", what they really are talking about is the Dirty Kanza 200. How do I know this? Because it is pretty much one of a half a dozen gravel races annually that attract legit Pro riders and is the most well known of any of those races by a country mile. 

So, when you see "doom and gloom" stories about how "grassroots gravel" is possibly on life support, just remember that there are over 500 other events across the USA that are not the Dirty Kanza 200 and don't have any Pro/roadie issues. So, if you want to say that these types of twisting the story line articles are click bait, yeah........I'd go along with that. At best, it isn't truthful journalism. Not when it comes to gravel events. Basically, stories like these aren't even stories worth printing.

I'm not the only one who thinks this...... (From Twitter)

I've also noted that a few pundits out there are making statements that "such-and-such event" was a "gravel event" back in the day. They almost always are "pre-Trans Iowa" dated. Then there is no other explanation, context, or history given to educate the listener/reader. That is misleading people and isn't right. The implication being that somehow the referenced event had something to do with what is happening today within the gravel scene.

First off, I'd point these foolish individuals to the following historical reference- "The State of the Gravel Scene" Secondly, anytime you read or hear folks refer to any one event, or even three, or four, as being "gravel events" back in the day that, by implication, were the precursors to today's scene, your "B.S. Meter" should be pegged. They weren't influential to today's scene. They just were events. Plain and simple. They did not spur the modern (within the last 15 years) grassroots movement everyone recognizes today as "gravel grinding".

Finally, you will hear and read about the mythical "Godfather of Gravel". I've heard at least four or five different people being referred to in this manner recently. Okay, this is simple. The "Godfather of Gravel" is about as real as Santa Claus. Period.

I get it. Everyone wants a source. A beginning. Some way to codify and box up things and tie that all up with a neat little bow. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of individuals who were responsible for what you and I know today as "gravel". The DK200, Barry-Roubaix, the Almanzo, Gravel Worlds, the former Trans Iowa, and many others all have individuals and groups of people, male and female, that forged what you know as "gravel" today. There were people involved in the scene before there was a "scene" to be in. I try to be careful to give credit where credit is due. There is no "singular" individual responsible for this scene. There just isn't and any attempt at saying that there was is just people being goofy.

 As with most things in life, any subject is generally more complex than many make it out to be, and always requires thought and research to understand it correctly. Ultimately you can choose to consume the "fast food" stories parading as knowledge or you can dig deeper and find out what is truth and what is fiction. I am not in charge of that. That is true. But I'm not going away either.........

Setting The Record Straight

Certain details- Important ones- are lost on "The Media". I won't let them forget.

Long time readers here know all about this gravel scene. You've been with me every step of the way if you've been reading here for ten plus years. You know the drill.

However; since gravel grinding has become "THE" thing these days, a lot more twisting of stories, false claims, and downright ignorant "knowledge filling" comments are being noted by myself and my long time friends. Sometimes I consider the source and let it go. I cannot enlighten everybody to what really went down. That said, every so often I notice how the chains get yanked by marketers, podcasters, and especially media wonks. I see total fabrications, lack of depth of research, and "spinning" on stories and when enough pile up, I have to let off some steam. Today is one of those days.

First, the "twisting" of story lines. I will address this again on "Friday News And Views", so I won't get too far on this today. However; when you read in many online and print media publications about "the gravel scene", and then read several lines about how "Pro/roadie" things are possibly going to "ruin gravel", what they really are talking about is the Dirty Kanza 200. How do I know this? Because it is pretty much one of a half a dozen gravel races annually that attract legit Pro riders and is the most well known of any of those races by a country mile. 

So, when you see "doom and gloom" stories about how "grassroots gravel" is possibly on life support, just remember that there are over 500 other events across the USA that are not the Dirty Kanza 200 and don't have any Pro/roadie issues. So, if you want to say that these types of twisting the story line articles are click bait, yeah........I'd go along with that. At best, it isn't truthful journalism. Not when it comes to gravel events. Basically, stories like these aren't even stories worth printing.

I'm not the only one who thinks this...... (From Twitter)

I've also noted that a few pundits out there are making statements that "such-and-such event" was a "gravel event" back in the day. They almost always are "pre-Trans Iowa" dated. Then there is no other explanation, context, or history given to educate the listener/reader. That is misleading people and isn't right. The implication being that somehow the referenced event had something to do with what is happening today within the gravel scene.

First off, I'd point these foolish individuals to the following historical reference- "The State of the Gravel Scene" Secondly, anytime you read or hear folks refer to any one event, or even three, or four, as being "gravel events" back in the day that, by implication, were the precursors to today's scene, your "B.S. Meter" should be pegged. They weren't influential to today's scene. They just were events. Plain and simple. They did not spur the modern (within the last 15 years) grassroots movement everyone recognizes today as "gravel grinding".

Finally, you will hear and read about the mythical "Godfather of Gravel". I've heard at least four or five different people being referred to in this manner recently. Okay, this is simple. The "Godfather of Gravel" is about as real as Santa Claus. Period.

I get it. Everyone wants a source. A beginning. Some way to codify and box up things and tie that all up with a neat little bow. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of individuals who were responsible for what you and I know today as "gravel". The DK200, Barry-Roubaix, the Almanzo, Gravel Worlds, the former Trans Iowa, and many others all have individuals and groups of people, male and female, that forged what you know as "gravel" today. There were people involved in the scene before there was a "scene" to be in. I try to be careful to give credit where credit is due. There is no "singular" individual responsible for this scene. There just isn't and any attempt at saying that there was is just people being goofy.

 As with most things in life, any subject is generally more complex than many make it out to be, and always requires thought and research to understand it correctly. Ultimately you can choose to consume the "fast food" stories parading as knowledge or you can dig deeper and find out what is truth and what is fiction. I am not in charge of that. That is true. But I'm not going away either.........

Which One Works?

Yesterday a subject came up that I found intriguing. It seems that Carlton Reid of BikeBiz, (he of 15,000 Tweets), Tweeted that he recently got both of the magazines pictured here in the post yesterday. His question was, "Which sells cycling better?"

I quipped back via Twitter that I didn't know, but I knew which one would tick off the females most.



Carlton answered back to the effect that it was okay since Momentum Magazine catered heavily to female cyclists. (The mag cover on the left is Momentum Magazine) In fact, Momentum is run by females, oddly enough. (But most folks would have no idea by looking at the cover) My point was that most would have no idea about the mag's content, just by looking at the covers. (My thinking was as though you were perusing a news stand, and saw these mag covers.)

If you want to know, I said "Momentum" would "sell" cycling more because of the sexy image, which would garner more interest. And in the process, the ire of women who are tired of having their sexuality used to "sell" anything.

So, we were both right, but I disagree that it is a "no big deal" issue, which is what Carlton seemed to imply. (Granted, I could have been reading into his Tweets. They are only 140 characters long, you know.) And later I added that the other magazine cover, (the one on the right), was really a motorcycle magazine, so the whole comparo was a moot point.

In the end, Momentum Magazine needs to sell units. They know a provocative cover image will get the eyeballs of the mostly male population of cyclists to take a closer look. That's smart, but it is also pandering to the "sex sells" way of doing things. Being run by females and having "great content that is focused on females" doesn't exonerate you from the painfully obvious.

Just for fun, take the lady on the right, (the one on the motorcycle), and with that same outfit, put her on the bike in Momentum's image. If you are a marketing person, which would you use for the cover to sell more units? The one Momentum used, or the one I just proposed?

Yeah....."Which One Works" indeed!

Seems like some folks have higher ideals and still use images that seek to titillate. I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm thinking this is pretty obvious, and silly. You can't have it both ways. The Momentum cover is sexist plain and simple, no matter who is running the mag, and no matter how helpful the content is. It's no different than saying Playboy was okay because they had great articles.

In the end, you decide, but I don't see this sort of thing as anything but what it always has been.

Which One Works?

Yesterday a subject came up that I found intriguing. It seems that Carlton Reid of BikeBiz, (he of 15,000 Tweets), Tweeted that he recently got both of the magazines pictured here in the post yesterday. His question was, "Which sells cycling better?"

I quipped back via Twitter that I didn't know, but I knew which one would tick off the females most.



Carlton answered back to the effect that it was okay since Momentum Magazine catered heavily to female cyclists. (The mag cover on the left is Momentum Magazine) In fact, Momentum is run by females, oddly enough. (But most folks would have no idea by looking at the cover) My point was that most would have no idea about the mag's content, just by looking at the covers. (My thinking was as though you were perusing a news stand, and saw these mag covers.)

If you want to know, I said "Momentum" would "sell" cycling more because of the sexy image, which would garner more interest. And in the process, the ire of women who are tired of having their sexuality used to "sell" anything.

So, we were both right, but I disagree that it is a "no big deal" issue, which is what Carlton seemed to imply. (Granted, I could have been reading into his Tweets. They are only 140 characters long, you know.) And later I added that the other magazine cover, (the one on the right), was really a motorcycle magazine, so the whole comparo was a moot point.

In the end, Momentum Magazine needs to sell units. They know a provocative cover image will get the eyeballs of the mostly male population of cyclists to take a closer look. That's smart, but it is also pandering to the "sex sells" way of doing things. Being run by females and having "great content that is focused on females" doesn't exonerate you from the painfully obvious.

Just for fun, take the lady on the right, (the one on the motorcycle), and with that same outfit, put her on the bike in Momentum's image. If you are a marketing person, which would you use for the cover to sell more units? The one Momentum used, or the one I just proposed?

Yeah....."Which One Works" indeed!

Seems like some folks have higher ideals and still use images that seek to titillate. I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm thinking this is pretty obvious, and silly. You can't have it both ways. The Momentum cover is sexist plain and simple, no matter who is running the mag, and no matter how helpful the content is. It's no different than saying Playboy was okay because they had great articles.

In the end, you decide, but I don't see this sort of thing as anything but what it always has been.