Geoff, one of our readers, sent this along to us. With this comment:
I've grown so accustomed to your stylish photos [on Copenhagen Cycle Chic - Ed.], that when I saw this image on another blog, I became just a little bit depressed.
I'm an American, so the outfits don't stand out as much for me, but labeling the women as "real" is unfortunate as now other people will think they need lots of technical clothing to go on a little ride to the park. Even if you're not stylish, just wear what you have on. Anyways, you've heard it all before, but this time it's from one of the US's biggest bicycle companies.
It is, indeed, interesting and another example of overcomplicating cycling in order to sell unecessary equipment and clothing. A continued branding of cycling only as a 'sport' or a 'hobby' and not as a feasible, sensible transport option for either commuting or just popping down the shops for a loaf of bread.
Are they 'real women' or are they merely 'Trek women' and not much else? Right off the bat, I'm sure that they are all lovely people. No problem there. But in best Copenhagenize style I wonder about this definition of them as 'real' women.
What is Trek saying? That real women wear 'sports clothing' when they ride a bicycle and, if you wish to be real, you should ride a bicycle in the same fashion as these featured 'real women' and invest in man-made fibres? Perhaps the copyrighter misunderstood the gig. Maybe he/she meant to write "real sports/recreation cycling enthusiasts of the female persuasion" but the brevity demanded of the internet made it get cut down to size.
Can real 'real' women not ride a bicycle as it was intended when invented in the late 19th century or does that make them unreal?
Imagine if this gold-plated statue celebrating the Danish 'cycling girl' high above the Copenhagen City Hall square was one of these 'real women'. She would look quite different. And would probably be sponsored by some sporting goods company. Thankfully, she doesn't and despite being erected in the 1930's, she looks much the same as real Copenhagen women today.
Trek wants to sell gear and clothing and bicycles. Fair enough. They're a company. It's a market economy. But do they really need to insult the hundreds of millions of women who ride their bicycle each and every day around the world, wearing the clothes in their closets and riding comfortable, non-sporty bicycles? Not to mention completely dissing the millions of American women who should be presented with everyday cycling as the effortless, enjoyable activity it is. If I owned a bike company in North America, I know I'd be tapping into this gold mine instead of trying to get a couple of thousand women to join bike clubs.
Real Women? I'll show you real women. They're on Copenhagen Cycle Chic every day but here's just a hasty, random collection from the Copenhagen Cyle Chic group on Flickr. From around the world. Real women, living real lives and just happening to do so on a bicycle.
43 thinking out louds:
I think you're misunderstanding what they were going for. Note that those women are not all rail-thin. If you read the bios, I think it's clear they're trying to illustrate that biking is for everyone, not just the uber-fit. Maybe this is undercut by their clothing, but like you said, they are a company trying to sell stuff. Then again, maybe that's what those five women actually wear when they ride.
i'm certainly not saying real women are thin. well, maybe in Denmark, but not elsewhere... :-) but my point is that they seem to imply that real women are sports freaks, when the opposite is true all over the planet.
if we want more people to ride bicycles, we should appeal to the majority, not the lycra crowd.
Ugh, we get it. Americans don't bike right. We make it too much about fitness, not enough about transportation.
I get where you are coming from on this. There is a short fall in this ad as far as only showing the lycra end of this, but there is a significant aspect to this ad that is perhaps not appreciated in the same way as it would be by women in America. Women here (especially those over 30)would be less likely to notice the attire than they would that these women are not models. The fact that there is more than one women in the ad that is slightly overweight and older than 21 is a huge thing, here. The women who need fitness the most are only given pictures of the über-thin, Pilates sculpted nymph to compare themselves to. So.... while a skirt and a pair of ballet flats would be appreciated, at least these women pictured are 'normal' people that women can see themselves in.
On the up side, two of my female co-workers have started to bike to work this month (in work clothes!) after seeing me do it everyday for the last year and a half. Things are changing, maybe just not at the speed of light.
I agree with the sentiment of Rising Jurist and Adrienne, I think the point, however badly they missed their mark, was that not all women who ride look like athletes. This is not meant to be a cheap shot, but not all women who ride look like the examples showcased in Copenhagen Chic, either.
Just to clarify my point, an editorial process happens when a photo subject is chosen for CCC that is a reflection of the the photographer's and/or poster's idea of a 'real woman.' the real women in my life may not be nearly as chic--but they ride bikes. NOt to be snarky, but real women bikers also don't have to ride in heels and skirts.
Sadly for too many people in too many parts of the US, specifically much of post WW II suburbia, riding for transport to work or the market isn't a practical choice, especially in regular clothes.
A lot of suburbs are zoned so that that any trip to market or work involves a ride of half an hour or more each way, and once out of your subdivision one may find one's self fighting traffic on high speed arterial roads with no bike lanes, and once you get to work or the shopping centre you may not find any bike parking. Add to this the more extreme climate in many parts of the States, dealers who aren't interested in selling practical bikes but would rather sell racing or mountain bikes along with the very profitable accessories and fitting services that go along with them...
In many urban areas there's the crime factor, as well as lack of adequate cycle facilities to contend with. A few places like Portland, Minneapolis, and Chicago seem to be on the right track but my own town, Detroit is not.
Sad, but I don't know what's going to change that unless the current economic meltdown forces the change. Though right now money for "trivial" things like cycling is often targeted in budget cuts.
Anyway what clothes Trek dressed the women in its ad is the least of the problems "cycle culture" faces here.
And I'm getting depressed, the roads here aren't cleared of snow and the temps are going to be well below freezing ,it was -22 C this morning :-O, for the the foreseeable future and I don't have a winterized bike, and I don't have spiked tires. Aaaaarrggghhhh!
once again with the uniform of cycling, is it any different than the uniform of skirts and high heels vs cycling clothing... it is very related to body image and cultural bias... the best thing i can say as a traveler and husband, is when my wife walked in oslo and looked at the local women, broad shouldered(not rail thin) and beautiful, she commented 'these people look like me' let people dress however they feel comfortable, for some it may be lycra, for some wool, for some a skirt and heels.... i myself look dashing in a kilt.
...freedom dammit ....
A lot of the women I see commuting to work in the morning are dressed like that. I'm not sure if they feel they have to dress that way due to how Americans feel about cycling, or because they have very long commutes and are trying to take care of their clothing... Also, thank you for sharing my photo. I always hope that by riding my bicycle, I might inspire others to ride in regular clothes and at a casual pace!
Ultimately, until it is a discussion that includes how to make people feel comfortable in their own skin, chic or not will make no impact. If woman can learn that taking their bodies in hand and using them to accomplish every day tasks is a rewarding experience that makes them feel better about themselves, then the rest will follow.
I have to remind myself constantly, that I am my own brand of chic. There will never be a day that I look like 90% of the woman that Mikael profiles on this blog. I have neither the time, money or inclination to be that quaffed. But I can use my own power to get myself where I need to go, and that makes me powerful and satisfied with who I am.
That is the point. Not the clothes, stretchy or not, but the confidence to get out and depend only on our selves for how we get somewhere. The daring to become stronger and more independent and in touch with what we are actually capable of.
Now, where are my stilettos? I need to do some serious cycling!
Trek do sell proper bikes that can be ridden in normal clothing, but for some reason choose to do this only in the Netherlands (not DK as well so far as I can tell) and not in their country of original.
It's rather a shame. Not only do Americans miss out on the practical bikes from European manufacturers, but they also miss out on the practical bikes from American manufacturers.
the selection of photos for CCC [selection makes it sound like we have an editorial meeting every morning] reflects the photographers' sense of æsthetics. it's personal.
if you look through the CCC blog there are many women not wearing heels or fabulous clothing. and eldely gents and ladies, too.
Anywhere else (like Copenhagen) this would not work. The advert is American geared toward "American women (who also have a self image problem)." The advert says, "hey, here are some real (American) women who come in all shapes in sizes AND BTW also are athletic! So if you are a real woman (of all shapes and sizes) and are athletic, buy our clothes!"
At least that's what I get...
I live in North America and I biked to work in work clothes for about two years until I slowly started moving over to bike clothes. First the shirt, then the sweat pants. I am now seriously considering getting biking shorts.
I think Copenhagen chick is great but it works for Copenhagen not Ottawa. When I am at my cottage in Adriatic, I bike in the bikini, but I'll take lycra for Ottawa. It is more comfortable and convenient. Sorry.
I wear my "regular" clothes (though they are usually not even close to being chic!) for short trips around town, but for my 13 mile commute to work, I usually look like these women. Maybe chic women don't sweat, but I do!
I am happy to see that Trek is definitely promoting cycling as transportation. On their homepage they have a prominent link to their site 1 world 2 wheels.
http://1world2wheels.org/
Don't get me wrong - I'd still like to see them representing women who aren't lycra-clad, but I do think that progress is being made.
Hopefully I am real enough for you now. Hi, I am Stephanie, the "Real Woman Who Rides" in the picture. I am the one right in the middle wearing the mountain bike clothing.
I am as real as any other woman rider out there! Real women ride bikes in so many different ways and I believe that Trek was trying to portray as many of those ways as possible when they selected us for the gig. You would know that if you read the bios and read our blogs.
Jen is a mom and a triathlete...she also as beat cancer twice. Susan is a working mom and pretty much a bike enthusiast...she reguarly rides in a skirt (I have pictures to prove it). Laura recently started teaching spin classes and she is wearing a cotton t-shirt most of the time. Marie is 62 years old and a new/casual rider that inspires to be a lot more than that. Me, I try to do it all. Trek initially portrayed me as a new mountain biker who recently moved to Minneapolis. I do mountain biking and racing...love it. I also do long bike trips on the road, long road rides, casual trips to the store, or the movies. I ride to friends houses, and to work...pretty much everywhere. 1 mile to 175 miles.
I think that makes me real and it doesn't matter what I wear. Sometimes I look like the trek picture, other times I don't. Right now I am still riding to work and it is -20 Fahrenheit. Do any of your chic girls do that?
Here is my blog if you want to read it: http://womenwhoride.typepad.com/stephanie/
thank you north america...cycling is an enjoyable activity and cycle chic is where you are at the moment, no rules = no barriers to progress,
let us be the 'ugly americans' if we must to stay warm and dry, ya see we have to shop online for bicycles with skirt protectors and wicker baskets are also hard to find
Vi elsker denne jord ... og vores cykler for
our chic girls ride all year as do the rest of us. On average there are 500,000 daily cyclists in Copenhagen. In the winter 80% still ride.
And that's just Copenhagen. There are 100 million daily cyclists in Europe so you'll see much the same all over Holland, in Swedish, German, Swiss cities, etc etc.
Regular people on regular bikes in their everyday clothes. Just as people have ridden since the invention of the bicycle and just as people will ride in the future.
If we make a concerted effort to promote cycling as a normal, everyday activity instead of brainwashing people into buying gear and lycra.
This blog and the other blogs connected with it do wonderful things for promoting everyday cycling, I would never take away from that. However, even though one can find examples photos of different kind of people on CCC, the preponderance of pics represent a certain chic aesthetic which I think informs more about the process of selection than the subject. Case in point: please review the qualification rules for the last CCC photo contest. Maybe it was tongue-in-cheek, but it sends a message. Copehagenize is a blog that discusses, at great length, messages about cycling--it should take ownership of the effects of its own message as well.
Yes, Trek is a company, and companies have products that they would like to sell. That does not mean they are brainwashing people to buy their products.
I don't work for Trek, I just write a blog, and that doesn't make me less real than any of your 500,000.
everyday cycling means that people will ride their bicycles in whatever manner they see fit... i personally find lycra really comfortable and it's not a 'uniform' anymore than my 'workday wardrobe' is a 'uniform'...
does form follow function? or would it be better to impose a 'cycling chic' on an unwilling public. i own 4 bicycles and ride each and everyone of them in different clothes and the same attitude.
As an American who recently spent half the year abroad living in Germany, I feel I can comment fairly accurately on this issue.
First off I love to riding bikes. Not only for pleasure but for fitness and commuting as well. I am lucky to have a job (at a bike company) that does not require commuting on the big freeways. When I commute to work in california I typically wear my spandex and a back pack..my ride is 15miles of hilly and diverse paths and riding my old schwinn 5 speed would make the final leg of the commute near impossible.
When I was living/working in northern Germany the only trace of a hill was 30k from where I lived, so riding a bike (a Gazelle) was a piece of cake. Yes, it did get pretty chilly in the Fall, but that just meant putting on another jacket or thicker tights. But I was happy to be able to wear my everyday casual clothing on my bike.
Now that Im back in the states I miss the segregated bike lanes of Germany very much. I also miss how integrated bikes and bike culture was in the community. But I must say that I do notice a significant amount of young ladies and gentlemen riding around on bikes since returning home. I am happy to see the shift from the niche fixed-gear scene to a more relaxed and casual trekking/cruiser bike (not to mention loads of people on classic/vintage bikes)
Also, I will agree with the others who say that Trek's target market for this campaign is/are American women. Marketing/Advertising campaigns that work over here in the states do not always translate into something successful in other countries or regions.
I dont identify with any of the women in their campaign, I can try to understand that they are 'trying to reach to' whatever 'type of rider' but come on trek, get your blogging on (dont they have any interns that are on any US blogs??!!?)
Im def. applying, and it certainly wont be with any spandex non-sense...
the stretchy stuff ill be wearing will be my colorful tights, take that trek ;D
xo.meli
steph: if you're taking this personally, you've completely and utterly missed the point.
As we often discuss here on Copenhagenize, it's about marketing cycling as an everyday activity, targeting everyday people who can ride to work or the supermarket, not ride 175 miles, wearing 'gear'.
It's about promoting bicycle culture, not sports.
with that said, as a former racing cyclist, riding 175 miles is cool and respect for that. it just doesn't mean much to a mother of two who wants to save money on gas and get fit.
As an keen commuter biker from Bergen, Norway, I can understand both sides arguments. But in the end whats most important are that people do use their bikes in everyday life!
Yea, yea, point taken; Europeans are so much more advanced and chic than any of us lowly unattractive Americans and Canadians who just missed boat on fashion.
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that "Euro-chic" elitist mantra...
While perhaps a bit sarcastic in presentation, I think twodeadpoets has hit the nail on the head.
The feeling that many North Americans get (I am a San Franciscan from Vancouver so I'll speak up for the lot of us) is that we are never right. If we bike on the weekends for fun, we are brainwashed into believing that we can not ride more; if we ride MTB's it is because we have been brainwashed to believe there is nothing else; if we ride in gear it is because we have been brainwashed...... we are not that stupid or gullible.
The creation of a reliable, useful, sustainable bicycle infrastructure is needed here more than any place in the world. Not because we are so behind, but because that is the precedent that will send the ripple out across the globe. But it can not happen in a vacuum. At some point, there has to be something right about what we do.
Stef is correct. She is a real woman. As am I, as is every woman out there. Real men eat quiche, real women wear cycling gear. Real cyclists eat quiche while they are riding! Instead of 'real women wear normal clothes on normal bicycles' maybe it should be 'real women should wear there own skin with pride on or off the bike' so that more 'real' women actually do ride.
OK. No more lecture from me. I have exceeded my pomposity quotient for the evening!
when i mentioned the failing economy to a friend of mine at a local bikeshop/coffeehouse(CRC), she said
it'll be fine the economy will settle out, there will less cars and more bikes and the new paradigm is that 'we'll be more like europe'
that's what i'm hoping for mpls as a colder copenhagen
I think what's presented here, and on its sister blog, is often hypocritical preaching. You're not preaching that we don't have to wear cycling-specific clothing, but rather that we should have to specifically not wear cycling-specific clothing. It's "fashionism" - we're not wearing what you're wearing, so we're doing it wrong. I think it's a European thing.
About six years ago my wife and I flew over to Europe with some friends, spending most of our time in the Bavarian region. On the flight over, one of the women, who had grown up first in Poland and then Germany, remarked on my wife's shoes, saying, "Those aren't the shoes you're going to be wearing the whole time, are they?" Karen replied that yes they were, because we were backpacking and had packed light. "Oh, you're going to get some looks. That's just not cool there."
You see, Karen was wearing tennis shoes, as she wanted to wear comfortable shoes, due to all the walking we were planning on. But people just don't wear tennis shoes there! Sure enough, when we were in the bigger cities like Zurich and Munich, women would nudge their friends and point at Karen's feet w/ a derogatory look, muttering something about them.
We don't look "fashionable" in our cycling clothes to our European brethren, therefore we must be doing it wrong.
I always enjoy these discussions, save the odd grumpy comment. As an added bonus it provides a bit of a fascinating pyschological observation.
It's a simple point - as in many previous posts - about how many people - read: companies - are getting their marketing wrong and how they are stunting the massive potential growth of everyday cycling by not speaking to everyday people.
You make a point and then watch it morph into incomprehensiable interpretations and Euro-pinko commie slash cultural elitist remarks.
I really hope Obama gives America the pride back that it deserves because cultural/national insecurity complexes are the white tennis socks of the human psychological condition.
And at no point do I say in this post that everyday cyclists HAVE to be chic. Fashion and clothing culture varies so much that it would be ridiculous to make such a point. This malplaced marketing approach has nothing to do with the style of Copenhageners, nor do I advocate changing the fashion habits of other nations.
This selling of cycling as gear dependent activity, when it isn't such - is the point.
i've quite enjoyed reading all these comments. as an american woman living in portland oregon [though soon to move back east], i've come to very much enjoy cycling to work over the past few years. i once swore i'd never ride a bike in a busy city street, and now i do it everyday.
personally, i don't really care what people where when the bike, i just care that more people DO bike to works and to and from the market here in the states because i think then, only things could begin to change. the more bikes there are on the road, the safer cyclists feel.
i understand mikael's argument stating that perhaps if companies marketed "ordinarily-dressed" women as "real" or as bicycle commuters, people might feel less intimidated about getting back on their bikes. perhaps then they'd remember how much they enjoyed cycling, and they'd give serious thought to using their bicycle as transport.
as a rather poor, recent college graduate, i cannot afford cycling clothes [nor do i really want them] and i often get looks from fellow bike commuters here, as if they think i'm a novice, or uninformed. if i HAD the money, i'd probably be more interested in a nice pair of boots or a cute jacket, or maybe a new set of oil paints or some books.
YES, i think america could benefit from marketing tactics involving women [and men] cycling in regular clothes, but-- i think ANY marketing regarding cycling [or walking or using public transport] is HIGHLY beneficial in our current economy/society/culture etc. many of us are already getting out there, but there needs to be many more before before a safe, enjoyable [and possibly fashionable] bicycle culture can truly be born.
that's all!
and thanks for your fabulous blog!
It is sad that while there are number of Copenhagenize blogs worldwide, in the US the big cycling blog trend is "Bike Snob City-X" where Serious Cyclists write at length about how everyone else is riding their bicycles wrong. But it is almost worth suffering these self-declared twits just to watch them perform a sincere victimization dance when confronted with any criticism of established American cycling culture.
If a majority of people dress a particular way for something (the Trek ad depicts unanimity), it becomes a de facto dress code. People that don't want to dress like that will just not want to do that thing, for fear of standing out or looking silly. In most parts of the US people dress amazingly consistently for cycling, compared to not cycling, and so the social pressure of a uniform is very much in place whether it's intentional or not.
Nothing is more secure than the "freedom" to conform, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. But if shiny synthetics are so comfortable and convenient and fun to wear (and not at all a social thing, a unity thing, a flag of sorts), why do their wearers get so reliably defensive when the subject comes up? Why not just personally benefit from the extreme ventilation and wicking action and ignore all social commentary? If you're wearing it entirely for functional reasons and not at all because that's what everyone nearby wears, you've got nothing to worry about when the trend ultimately collapses.
Mikael, I love this blog and daydream of living in a place where I can bike the way you advocate. However, you are reading too much into that silly advert. Trek is advertising fitness to women who want to get fit. Why should they advertise not buying their products to people who are not their target audience?
This discussion got me thinking about why your original post irritated me enough to write in the first place. Now that more people have chimed in, I realise it is the following sentence that got my dander up:
"Not to mention completely dissing the millions of American women who should be presented with everyday cycling as the effortless, enjoyable activity it is."
Cycling in North America in many cases, mine included, is NOT effortless and sometimes it is not even enjoyable. Distances are large, bike paths are an afterthought or so bent on recreation they don't actually go anywhere, there is very little infrastructure or tolerance. I don't commute by bike because it saves gas money or gets me fit. If those were the only reasons I would not go through the pain. I bike because I believe that if enough people bike, it is more likely that infrastructure will be improved. I also bike because I want to set a good lifestyle example for my son, because I am concerned about environment and because I love biking.
I an not a fitness freak, I can't even do two push ups, but if I didn't own a "fast" bike on which I can cycle my lazy butt off and take a shower when I got to the Campus, I would not have commuted by bike at all last year.
So please be a bit kinder on us sweaty suburban mamas who go out of our way to include bicycles in our lifestyles despite the environment that makes it difficult. Sometimes it really is my leotard or the highway.
Like most here, I love this blog and very much appreciate the mostly spot-on writing and subsequent responses (it's why I keep coming back). My wife, who is a real woman (at least the last time I checked) does not wear cycle specific clothing and is uninterested in “looking cool” or fashionable because it has no bearing on how she feels about herself but is interested in biking from an environmental and heath-wise point of view… and she enjoys it! For all of our bike tours she has worn the same clothing she would wear for work, to go to the bank, to the post office, or etc but last summer, after a 700km tour and the resulting saddle sores, she now owns has a pair of padded lycra shorts. I didn’t get saddle sores at all but was wearing under my DYI knickers my lycra/wool Ibex bike shorts with “Italian padding (whatever that is).”
As far as the “pinko-communist” comments I don’t think anyone here suggests it's an accurate depiction of what was suggested in the original post however I still stand by my statement that the article does reflect some cultural and fashion snobbery.
I think the whole picture has been taken out of context. The Trek picture is meant to advertise me ( and the other four women) as "women who ride". Yes we are American, and yes, some of us are athletic, but it was not a photo to sell Trek products. In fact, Marie and Laura did not want to wear shorts, so Trek allowed them to wear their OWN capri style riding shorts that THEY had brought to the shoot. Marie is also wearing her own shirt and shoes. The only thing that she is wearing that is Trek is the jacket. From the beginning, Trek wanted us to be ourselves both in photos and on our blogs. Out of all the 2400 entries they received for the contest...they tried to pick five categories of women riders: Mountain, Road, Triathlon, Bike Path, and Urban.
Trek honestly wants to reach out to all types of Women. Their company promotes all kind of advocacy, commuting, and charities. They also have many pictures of people riding in "regular/street clothes" on their website. This is just one picture, and I don't believe Trek is really promoting their clothing line.
Don't get me wrong, they do promote their clothing line and their bikes...they are a company and that is what they do.
Many people in the USA do dress like this picture when they are out for a bike ride. I don't dress like that when I am going to the market, or to the movies, or to work...but when I am out for an actually bike ride to get exercise, you better bet I'll be wearing spandex. It is the same in gyms in the USA...people wear gym clothes, not leather boots tweed jackets and plaid scarfs.
Mikael, at first I took your attack on Trek's marketing strategies as a personal attack. You doubted that I was "a real woman" and that if I happened to be athletic, I could not possibly relate to a mother of two who rides to stay in shape or save gas money. I don't see it as personal anymore and I think you just voice very strong opinions on your blog.
I actually enjoy your blog and I think I would really like you if I ever met you.
Our cultures are very different and maybe our riding styles are completely opposite... but we share a lot of the same....as cyclists.
I think we believe in a lot of the same things as cyclists as well...maybe just not on what to wear.
I think what almost everybody (except Mikael of course) is missing here is how for a cycling company to also be a special shorts promoting company is in the long run counterproductive.
"This selling of cycling as gear dependent activity, when it isn't such - is the point."
Most women I know would rather spend money buying other clothes, and I imagine American women are the same - clothes which they could wear on their bicycles if companies like Trek didn't spend lots of money actively discouraging them from doing so.
More people will ride when cycling is a normal activity. This is proven. Making people having to go out and buy new clothes and then change their clothes before they can cycle isn't going to help it become normal. Imagine if you had to put on special shorts every time you jumped in a car, and every car ad had people in special shorts?
I sit here in Canberra, Australia typing this, and see people around me riding in 35 C weather, in t-shirts and skirts. They're fine. I'm fine. So don't claim it's all about the sweat. It's entirely a cultural thing, as David Hembrow illustrates above.
And when it's -10 C with windchill (it doesn't quite get down to that here in winter -8 on a cold morning), you wear more, and layer up and down depending on the weather.
Well said Steph and I should add you look great!
I'm not a big Trek fan (for other reasons) but I can't believe that they "spend lots of money actively" trying to discourage people from wearing "normal" clothing while biking. They do, however, spend a lot of money advocating cycling such as their One World, Two Wheels program (http://tinyurl.com/6ly3uz) and they also spend money helping to combat HIV/AIDS (http://tinyurl.com/45mtnc).
When a thing has distinct stylistic elements that become a recognizable aesthetic it reaches the status of a brand. I think most readers can recognize that subjects on CCC have certain stylistic elements that are recognizable and can be part of a certain attitude of Euro-chic. I agree emphatically with Mikael that selling the idea of dependent cycling clothes is damaging to the idea that everyone can cycle. How does Trek sell the idea you need their clothes? By presenting images that imply that this person is the epitome of a 'real cyclist.' My objection only came when Mikael removed the iconography of one brand only to replace it with another. CCC is a legitimate representation of a SEGMENT of the cycling public (so are Trek clothing wearers, by the way). The majority of the people on the cycle roads with me in the pre-dawn do not wear Lycra nor are we particularly stylish--we are dressed functionally for our daily labors. We would never make it in a Flikr grouping on CCC. And we shouldn't, but we are 'real cyclists.'
No one called anyone a "pinko communist." If anything, I'M the pinko communist, warning against exclusivity and elitism.
I'm sorry but Mikael is absolutely right about this. I've even done reports on how the American bicycle industry does a very excellent job of marginalizing itself from the general American public. Mostly they do so with the bikes they make but they also also do so with their marketing as well.
Of all the companies TREK is by far the most guilty of perpetuating the "you must wear spandex" stereotype of cyclist.
If you look at car advertising most car company almost never showed people driving cars in special flame retardant jumpsuits with special shoes and a helmet (Race cars only make a guest appearance). Instead they show average everyday people wearing average everyday cloths just like the 95% of Americans do. They know who they are advertising to!
TREK and many other American bicycle companies do EXACTLY the opposite. They almost exclusively show cyclists only in spandex or other tight fitting clothing. Uh hello?!?! 95% of Americans don't wear that stuff!!
And their 1world2wheels website is equally bad. They have videos on there that make is seem you need to spend hundreds of dollars on gear before you can ride the bike that you just bought or already own.
Now for a counter point, look at Breezer (www.breezerbikes.com). Joe Breeze totally gets it. I just searched the entire website and there is not a stitch of spandex pictured on that site. Men in suits, jeans (Joe himself), regular shorts and ladies in a nice dress and other normal summer cloths. All in all the people pictured don't look like cyclists. Instead they look like the 95% of Americans that don't regularly cycle. BINGO!!!
Imaging if TREK, the largest and most influential bicycle manufacturer did the same.
well said, andy. you, of all people, should know.
I don't need special gear to ride a bike, I just need a decent bloody bike!
I foolishly bought a cheap one, and while it's supposed to have ten speeds, in fact it has two:
"Legs going like a whirligig", and
"Legs pumping like an Olympic powerlifter."
It's actually more effort than walking... So I walk instead.
I read this blog post quite some time ago, and have been meaning to write a response blog myself (which I probably will do soon). I want to respond to Mikael's response comment that starts, "It's a simple point..." I admire all that you have said in the blog, and in the responses, but I do beg to differ. Where the blog becomes problematic is its oversimplification. You cannot ignore gender dynamics in a discussion like this, but you have done just that in making your simple point. What jumps out at me as problematic about the ad is that it is another commodification of feminism - big companies / the media using feminist sentiments to make money.
Post a Comment