2015 'PRO' cycling discussion

[seanblurr]

I was going to reference the WNBA as well. TV coverage isn't a charity or government mandated situation. Advertisers will buy add space if there is interest and viewers. If there's not....they won't.

I feel like Velonews and others have made this huge push to give more, if not equal, coverage to women's cycling. I'd bet real money their click through of those stories is abysmal.

Again, you can't force companies to advertise on programing they don't think they will get value for. If there was a demand for women's cycling it would be on.

This. 100% truth.

[kbbpll]

If there was a demand for women's cycling it would be on.

And yet there's demand if they create it, and there's demand if they pay attention to it. Women's cycling is the most growing demographic where I live, yet the "powers that be" seem more intent on quashing it that profiting from it. USA Pro Challenge tried to make a big media splash by claiming that the women's race got the same money as the men, but did anybody follow up on that? Nobody seems inclined to give a nod to women's cycling as the next big thing, so it won't be. Without going into the reality of "winning", the women's stage of USPCC was measurably more exciting for live spectators on the northern CO stage. They came through a few at a time, riding their guts out. People screamed for every bunch. It was spread out over half an hour. With the men, it was one group of six followed by the peloton. Yawn.

[prendrefeu]

I feel like Velonews and others have made this huge push to give more, if not equal, coverage to women's cycling.

They haven't. Period.
Perhaps the "huge push" you saw was basically going from "none" to "a few". That isn't a huge push.

Again, you can't force companies to advertise on programing they don't think they will get value for. If there was a demand for women's cycling it would be on.

Ironic that we're going to use a 'cycle' term to describe what's happening when discussing this, but that's what it is. Pointing out into the anonymous crowd and saying "it's not what they want" is just relying on the old crutch.

So what happened during the 80s and 00's when, all of a sudden, "cycling" was being "pushed down the throats" of the US Audience with those no-names at the time: LeMonde? Armstrong? Hardly household names until of course there was that HUGE media push for attention to them, which caused an initial shitload of backlash among stalwarts of the US media and entertainment cycles. Cycling? Skinny freaks riding bikes? Why would they want to watch that when there's big roided up men wearing helmets on a Sunday and tall men leaping into the air to slam a ball into a basket on a small court? Come on, man, bikes?!

Yet here we are.

What happened was simple: the media saw a small story, but didn't really know much about it. The advertisers were seeing a growing demographic of people interested in riding (again, growing! not the majority at all! that's a target point of increasing advertising opportunities: new markets)... so Budweiser, Motorola, name your company was thinking "yeah, so we've got this growing market of afluent people who want to have personal achievement and not just sit on their couches, how do we appeal to them? Oh! There's this race going on and there happens to be a personality doing well? I tell you what ABC News, ESPN and whoever you are: I'll pay you $$$$ to cover it."
The media initially replied "ugh, really?" and did it anyway, begrudgingly. And the advertisers kept pushing it. And pushing it. And pushing it.
Eventually people paid attention. It wasn't immediate, but they did.... and look where we are now with cycling in the US market.

And lo! Behold! In the year of some-people's lord 2015, guess what one of the largest target demographic is in advertising and marketing initiatives?
Women.
Women's health (all ages).
Young women's development and encouragement.

and yet the UCI refuses to have races of any length to compare to a men's race. They deemed womens races to be "excessive in challenge" despite nearly all of the peloton finishing. They have ridiculous rules in place which seriously restrict women's cycling. Prudhomme refuses to have the Tour de France associate its name with a women's race (making his name a bi-lingual reference to his behaviour, no?). Yeah, it's totally encouraging for young women to want to go out there, train, compete and race when their top target isn't the prestigious "Tour de France" but instead "La Course" or "Tour Cycliste Féminin" ... hardly inspiring.

You can point at one thing and think "yeah well, this isn't there..." be it the media, the fans, the sponsorship, the growth, the rules (UCI)... but it's all finger pointing and once one actually makes a concerted effort (sponsors pushing for races and media coverage will be the most direct), the other parts of the cycle change as well.

[tonytourist]

How is it that pro women get paid the same amount for the world championship, yet their course is shorter than what the junior men ride? The pro men rode twice the distance for the same amount of money. I know the junior men don't get paid what the pro women do. Maybe it should be normalized, dollar per mile raced?

[prendrefeu]

Maybe the men's race didn't need to be that long.

[ultimobici]

It was changed in 2013. One of the reasons cited was that prize money is typically split between teammates. As the majority of male participants are properly salaried but their female counterparts are not always well paid, it goes some way to compensating for the disparity.

With regard to the normalising of prize money, would you do the same for tennis? They only play 3 sets to the 5 of the men.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stolichnaya]

There is probably something to be said for the earning potential 'after' winning a rainbow jersey for men versus women.
(Unless you believe in that WC curse about which many of the male winners complain.)

[DartanianX]

For the majority, regardless of weather an individual is correct in the opinion or stance they have on Womens Cycling, the market doesn't exist - YET - for companies to make money from Womens cycling = low wages and poor market share when it comes to coverage of the sport.

You have to remember, for the most part, even mens teams its cycling companies, and companies who's CEO's are heavily involved in cycling that keep alot of teams alive.

[DartanianX]

[lippythelion]

The Eurosport commentators at the WC's said that there was going to be more womens races broadcast live in 2016. We will have to wait and see what 'more' actually means because I think only the WC's were screened live for women this season.

[jooo]

The women's world RR was pretty ridiculous if you think about it and largely because Armistead and a few others are just so much better than most other women. The gap is huge and probably narrowing as more women become involved, but she literally pulled, attacked on the hardest hill, pulled some more, then sat there and looked at people who had no chance at beating her and won. It was more of "how is she going to screw this up" than a nail biting showdown of the best of the best in the last 5km of the race.

Mostly on the same page here.

You obviously can't change the past, but the race would most likely have been much less one sided if Olds hadn't crashed early on and if Bronzini didn't end up with a mechanical on the last lap.

[nathanong87]

Guys, remember the WNBA? Aside from women's tennis and some women's track and field events, the level just isn't the same which means that its not as entertaining to watch. The women's world RR was pretty ridiculous if you think about it and largely because Armistead and a few others are just so much better than most other women. The gap is huge and probably narrowing as more women become involved, but she literally pulled, attacked on the hardest hill, pulled some more, then sat there and looked at people who had no chance at beating her and won. It was more of "how is she going to screw this up" than a nail biting showdown of the best of the best in the last 5km of the race.

Meanwhile, the breaks never got much of a leash, none of the national teams seemed to actually be able to work as a team and there was really nothing memorable.

I watched a few women's races this year to try to be more open minded or knowledgeable about how they tend to play out. Personally I never felt that what I was able to watch was really worth watching. In specific I remember a rider attacking and another bridging up to her by coasting. Coasting. Unable to find the GIF at the moment. A few of the women are so damn good that they make it not much of a contest, but on TV you aren't really able to look at w/kg or any stats so that becomes sort of irrelevant. Mostly the teams seemed to not really have the same level of strategy and tactics and when they did it was usually something really blatant such as blocking or perhaps organizing a bit while pulling.

Hopefully it improves, but cycling is definitely in a period in which money isn't really increasing and for good reason in many cases. Sponsors want visibility and they're not going to get that through women's racing.

i dunno , for me personally worlds womens race was fine. I mean if the break with coryn would have worked or survived then that changes the whole picture. Same with the mens road race.... if boonen's group would have made it to the end, none of us would be sweating sagan. But 'that's bike racing' in some of the sense. We are just evaluating using hindsight now. Last year's womens worlds was pretty exciting if i think i remember how it ended.

The other discussion topic though is that i agree on the other statement, that womens footy is no where near as exciting as mens football (the one with feet). Which is the only other sport that i've sat down to watch in comparison to mens (other than cycling).

[jooo]

I'm not claiming women's racing is better. it's different. often a bit refreshing for someone used to the constant chess game provided by men's elite.

To me it just seems as if there's actually quite a bit of hype about the entertainment value of women's cycling from sections of English speaking cycling media which doesn't stack up. It's as if some use it as a good example for what men's racing should aspire to be

when I say "shorten the distance", apart from letting cyclists keep more strenght for the finale, I also mean it's pointless from the TV spectator's perspective, or sponsor's perspective, to cover all those miles, especially since you can't even see them, can you.

You bring up an interesting aspect of the sport, that just because something may not be seen (or that exciting to most people), it doesn't mean that it isn't an important aspect of the sport.

I actually see the ability to not show half of a cycling race live as a lucky break that cycling can use more effectively to keep up with other sports that generally pose less of a logistical challenge. Television time is expensive and the fact that you can successfully condense the first part of racing into a short highlights package and then play, let's say the last hour and a half live saves huge amounts of money; ie sponsors don't need to be found to pay for a whole 6 hour broadcast. The coverage needs a lot of work though. The English speaking commentators from almost every network are awful, the pictures themselves often need improving and the sport as a whole has been slow to embrace technology.

yes, cycling's an endurance sport, but that doesn't mean we need a negative selection at the finish line.

There is a point to the length of a race. It showcases the physical and mental toughness required to be a successful pro. I enjoy watching riders in a race of attrition, turning themselves inside out to win a long stage that's 2 and half weeks into a grand tour. Endurance is an integral part of creating those scenarios in road cycling and I don't feel this aspect needs to change for the future.

I don't really know what you mean by the shorter stages that didn't pan out, because to the contrary - I can remember shorter, harder stages that did bring a lot of fighting rather than just dropping those who ran out of gas.

I'll politely disagree with this for the most part. They're often tackled at a faster pace which produces even less of a selection. The bunch is able to stay together more easily (due to riders not being fatigued). Sure there's been good finishes on some of the shorter stages, but again that's almost always down to a good race route and/or a GC battle, not the race distance.

[nathanong87]

lizzie doe. #quadzilla

[ultyguy]

photo from Tim de Waele

BMC using branded Assos rain jackets