#!markdown
It sounds like what Amanda is talking about are the brands just tossing swag
and bro-deals at riders who would be buying their stuff anyway IN LIEU OF
supporting professional athletes or the progression to professional in racing
- basically trying to crowdsource as much of their PR stuff as possible, as
cheaply as possible, and the opportunity cost there is that they aren't
supporting elite level athletes the same way, or supporting grassroots racing
they way they could.
Who knows, the economic argument probably is that the short-term money grab of
'anybody with a smartphone and an instragram account is now a brand
ambassador' will work out great, and spending that money saved on padding the
cash picture of the company to ride out rough patches or have resources to
spend hopping on literally every bandwagon is the fiscally sound one - but it
sucks. It's basically trying to bring the indie music model to an equipment
sport.
Amanda has accurately put the blame on the lazy brand management approach that
has gone to the extreme of leveraging social media to the point where it's
eroding even the grassroots racing scene, in an era where new disciplines of
racing are exploding in numbers, the downside of that is still noticeable.
I'd be fine with lifestyle brand ambassadors alongside professional athletes
that help develop products, and show what's possible. When the former cuts
into the ability of the latter, especially without something akin to the 107%
rule (see: FIA F1 racing) where anybody who can't hack it doesn't roll out on
race day, then the resources that should be spent getting a semi-pro racer or
junior racer into a ride where they can develop and succeed are getting spent
on somebody whose primary expertise is managing hashtags.
This is worse on the women's side, and I suspect that's why she's so willing
to drop that hammer - as a female athlete competing at the elite level, it has
to be absolutely sickening to have a sport with completely objective
performance measures (can't argue objectivity with a stopwatch) still have an
influx of funded athletes who simply aren't at the same level, but can make
every single race. It DOES hold back the truly good women athletes when that
sponsorship money goes to less skilled people that might have more symmetric
faces for media, but the free pass these companies get leads to crap like
Danica Patrick having big sponsored rides, while the likes of Sarah Fisher and
Erica Enders-Stevens having to win on their own merit while under-funded in
another equipment sport just to get a spot at the table with real sponsorship
money.
Sorry for the motorsports analogies, but I've followed that for longer than
bike racing.
Sept. 19, 2016, 12:44 p.m. - Tehllama42
#!markdown It sounds like what Amanda is talking about are the brands just tossing swag and bro-deals at riders who would be buying their stuff anyway IN LIEU OF supporting professional athletes or the progression to professional in racing - basically trying to crowdsource as much of their PR stuff as possible, as cheaply as possible, and the opportunity cost there is that they aren't supporting elite level athletes the same way, or supporting grassroots racing they way they could. Who knows, the economic argument probably is that the short-term money grab of 'anybody with a smartphone and an instragram account is now a brand ambassador' will work out great, and spending that money saved on padding the cash picture of the company to ride out rough patches or have resources to spend hopping on literally every bandwagon is the fiscally sound one - but it sucks. It's basically trying to bring the indie music model to an equipment sport. Amanda has accurately put the blame on the lazy brand management approach that has gone to the extreme of leveraging social media to the point where it's eroding even the grassroots racing scene, in an era where new disciplines of racing are exploding in numbers, the downside of that is still noticeable. I'd be fine with lifestyle brand ambassadors alongside professional athletes that help develop products, and show what's possible. When the former cuts into the ability of the latter, especially without something akin to the 107% rule (see: FIA F1 racing) where anybody who can't hack it doesn't roll out on race day, then the resources that should be spent getting a semi-pro racer or junior racer into a ride where they can develop and succeed are getting spent on somebody whose primary expertise is managing hashtags. This is worse on the women's side, and I suspect that's why she's so willing to drop that hammer - as a female athlete competing at the elite level, it has to be absolutely sickening to have a sport with completely objective performance measures (can't argue objectivity with a stopwatch) still have an influx of funded athletes who simply aren't at the same level, but can make every single race. It DOES hold back the truly good women athletes when that sponsorship money goes to less skilled people that might have more symmetric faces for media, but the free pass these companies get leads to crap like Danica Patrick having big sponsored rides, while the likes of Sarah Fisher and Erica Enders-Stevens having to win on their own merit while under-funded in another equipment sport just to get a spot at the table with real sponsorship money. Sorry for the motorsports analogies, but I've followed that for longer than bike racing.