The women’s cycling calendar – part 2: TV and publicity

by Sarah Connolly on Jun 6, 2011 8:49 AM EDT in Women's Cycling

Last week I found that although there are more UCI-ranked day races on the calendar for 2011 than there were in 2006, there has been a significant overall drop in stage races and in UCI-ranked racing days – especially since the high point of 2008 (In 2008, there were 139 racing days in just the UCI-ranked stage races - this year, there will be 126 racing days in UCI-ranked stage AND day races put together)

Finding out that we’ve lost stage races wasn’t a surprise – for the last few years, races have been disappearing, leaving big holes in the women’s cycling calendar, especially in May, where we really missed the Tour de l’Aude, and only recently this year’s Route de France was cancelled, leaving only seven UCI-ranked racing days for the women in the whole of August.

However, it doesn’t seem in the ethos of women’s cycling to focus on negatives, and I’ve been thinking about different ways stakeholders in women’s cycling could get involved and reverse the trend. This article looks at television and publicity, and part 3 looks at other suggestions – especially with ways we can get involved.

These are presented as possibilities, from a fan perspective (I’m certainly no expert!) – and as a starting point for discussion. If you have any other ideas, or disagree with these, please do add to the comments – the more, the merrier.

Whenever I’ve had the chance, I’ve asked riders what the key thing that would make a difference would be, and there’s one common answer…

Television coverage

Races being shown on tv helps everyone – races and teams get more sponsors, sponsors and riders have visibility, fans get to see racing! At the moment almost all races are filmed – and there are some great examples of tv coverage. Every year, RAI show each Giro Donne stage immediately after their Tour de France programme, without geo-restrictions – and this year, the brand-new Energiewacht Tour was not only televised by local channel RTL.nl, but the programmes are still up online.

I’ve always imagined that producing race footage was the expensive part – so surely other tv stations could buy the footage in existence, and add commentary themselves? I asked AA Drink-Leontien.nl rider Marijn de Vries about this, as in her other life, she’s a tv editor. Sadly, it seems this solution isn’t as easy as it could seem. According to De Vries, there’s a big problem in the way:

This footage cost a fortune, most of the times. I spoke to a journalist from national Dutch tv and he said: last year we wanted to show Marianne Vos winning a stage of a race in another country, but we had to pay 1000 euro to the tv channel for just 1 minute of footage. I can imagine that they decide not to do that. Same problem for other races: broadcasters ask loads of money for the footage. It's stupid, but that's the way it is.

This is frustrating – after all, most of the time tv companies aren’t doing much with the footage. Of course it costs them money to film races, but if they’ve already spent it and if other countries aren’t buying it at the price they’re asking, they can’t recoup the outlay anyway.

One solution could be that races do deals with tv companies that help promote women’s cycling, especially where there are men’s races too – eg Fleche Wallonne & Qatar (both run by the ASO), Ronde van Vlaanderen, GP de Plouay. In order to get the rights for the men’s race (which bring in money, for Classics, at least), the filming company could have to do more to promote the women’s race, making better deals on the footage etc – and definitely show the finish lines live. It would really be win-win for the filming company – by selling footage cheaply at first, they could build up a market, meaning in the future they could charge that €1,000/minute.

There are signs that things are changing in termsof tv. The UCI puts short clips of World Cup races up on their youtube site, and at the end of the last season, David Harmon produced a half-hour programme on the 2010 World Cup that was shown on British Eurosport and on UCI youtube. This year, that has been expanded – 15-minute coverage for each of the first four rounds, in two programmes so far.

These 2011 programmes have been shown on British Eurosport, and thanks to a partnership between Cervélo and Cycling.tv, they are also hosted free-to-view on Cevélo’s website. One thing cycling fans can do is just watch them, showing there is an audience – others include publicising them in our own ways, and sending emails saying how much we like seeing them (or if you’re in a non-British Eurosport zone, emailing and asking to see them on tv!)

Eurosport is the tv station I know best, but there are other signs of change too. De Vries says Sporza has increased it’s coverage of the Ronde van Vlaanderen and Omloop het Nieuwsblad, and cites Sporza’s Karl Vannieuwkerke as a champion of women’s cycling. Vannieuwkerke wrote a piece in Het Nieuwsblad in April, about the lack of coverage of women’s cycling (read it on his blog in Dutch, or via google translate).

And it’s not just this that is encouraging De Vries:

Fortunately I see some change, in Belgium and even in the Netherlands: the journalists start to appreciate more and more what we do. It takes loads of time but I think we should focus on the positive: last week it was even in the news that Kirsten Wild and Marianne Vos went to Denmark to explore the world championship route. That's really something new, things like that never used to be 'news'.

So a task for stakeholders could be to try to encourage television coverage. It would be a challenge, but thinking across the range of resources there are so many possibilities – especially in this internet era, where races can be shown online.

Could the UCI and National Federations help races make better deals with tv companies, even if it’s just to archive their existing coverage? Maybe sponsors have contacts within the media who could help? And fans can do our bit too. This will take time, but already we’re seeing signs of change.

And in the absence of actual tv companies showing races, there are some really creative solutions. The 2010 Open de Suède Vårgårda Road Race had webcams attached around key points in the course, & streamed the footage on their website, with radio coverage in between. CJ Farquharson, who publishes race reports and photos on her WomensCycling.net has this year added video to her repertoire, and has been mini-films from the biggest races this season, with lots of rider interviews (click on a few and watch them, they're great!) - and the Motomedia team send bike-mounted cameras to Belgian races and produce really professional videos.

Race publicity

In the meantime, there are other ways of increasing publicity for races that could make sponsoring a race more attractive – and again, there are things that could be done at every level, even by us!

It has to be said, not all races are as easy to follow as we’d like. I could point to half a dozen races where it’s hardly a surprise they’re struggling. When I interviewed Lotto cyclist Vicki Whitelaw last year, she told me how a group of riders, frustrated with the lack of internet presence for a stage race, had offered to take over the race website and publicity. This was not an easy race, and the idea of riders finishing a stage and then running the website is crazy, but would have been fun to see (sadly the race declined their offer).

I do have sympathy with race organisers – especially if their committee is made up of people without internet skills, or who are struggling just to keep the race going – but this is something where fans can help. If we’re not living near a race, we can’t get involved with physical support, like race marshalling, but we certainly could help with the online side of things. A struggling race could put out a request for volunteers to run the website or twitter stream, send out press releases, promote the race online, and people could help from anywhere in the world.

And of course, there are some races that have excellent publicity. The RaboSter Zeeuwsche Eilanden has a lovely website, where they run a live ticker for each stage – and Omloop van Borsele also have live tickers, and post finish-line video on their website and youtube. Possibly the best race website belongs to Thüringen Rundfahrt, linking to all kinds of information, including videos. And just this weekend, the GP Ciudad de Valladolid had a ticker and also put the information (& links to photos etc) on their race Twitter, and the Liberty Classic's twitter re-tweeted all kinds of interesting pre-race tweets from riders, teams and other media.

These are races I’ll watch out for year after year, because they make it so easy. Maybe the UCI could broker help – ask races organisers to share advice, and put races that want help in touch with them?

Teams and race publicity

Where races can't or don't, some teams are publicising the races themselves using social media, especially Twitter, which is perfect for in-race updates. I am a huge fan of Diadora-Pasta Zara’s DS, Manel Lacambra, for all of his twitter race information – and Alrikkson Go:Green’s twitter stream has also been fantastic for live reports.

HTC-Highroad work hard to share results after races. In last year’s Giro Donne, they tweeted regular updates from Ina-Yoko Teutenberg, before she got her own twitter account (photos of Teute sitting in the silver throne of winningness, on her mobile phone were fab!) It really helps raise sponsor awareness – my view of the HTC phones is almost entirely coloured by the teams’ use of mobile media!

HTC are also good at updating their website with news of how riders are doing, and where they will be riding next. There are a few teams I just despair of – looking on some websites, you would hardly think they raced. I know some have policies of only telling us when their riders win, but if this results in total silence, it’s counter-productive, and can’t be encouraging for their riders.

Luckily, it’s not just HTC who have embraced publicity – they’re just one example. AA Drink-Leontien.nl have news articles about other riders winning as well as their own – and their videos are a lot of fun. Their video from Het Nieuwsblad included footage from a bike-mounted camera – the moment the rider crashed, and her bike wheel was changed, was a unique PoV. Dolman’s Landscaping is another I notice a lot – it’s worth having a look at team sites some time to compare and contrast – and reward the ones who do things well with additional page views.

Personally, I don’t believe that riders have an obligation to blog and tweet about races – it’s enough that they ride them! – but it’s always fantastic to have insights into what racing is like, and again, this adds to race publicity. Podium Café has provided some proof that riders who do choose to blog and tweet get a much higher profile and recognition factor, more than some riders with better results. It would definitely be in the interest of both races and teams to see if there are more riders who would be willing to use social networking to share information, and who could be supported to do so.

Or if not riders, why not team staff? Every team has at least 1 mechanic or support staff at races – so if no one else is already doing it, ask them to update on the team’s progress. They wouldn’t even have to write it themselves – if they phoned someone else with information, it could be updated from anywhere in the world.

The mainstream cycling media love press releases, so teams and races could put more of these together, with rider quotes and interesting snippets, and again, win-win, more publicity for the race, team and rider. International riders and staff could help translate these into other languages, and target international media. If they are really stuck for resources, again, these are things I’m sure fans would be happy to help with. Hell, there’s one big team I practically want to beg to let me do their publicity for them, free of charge (maybe one day I should send that email!)

Which brings me onto what we can do to help…. It’s simple – share and publicise information, and click through links, especially to race websites, showing we’re interested. It only takes a little bit of time – my summer resolution is to click through even when Monty or someone has already shared the information – every little bit helps.

In Part Three I’ll look at other ways that races can be supported, again by different stakeholders – and as I said at the start, if you have any thoughts on what else can be done, or if you disagree with anything I’ve written, add it to the comments!

Screenshots from the websites of the Thüringen Rundfahrt, HTC-Highroad and AA Drink-Leontien.nl - all taken on 4th June 2011

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I tend to think that graduated licensing of race footage is how it needs to go.

Where rights owners sell at a lower price for delayed coverage, allowing tv or internet broadcasters to build an audience with reduced costs. Then increase the costs as a weekly wrap-up graduates to daily highlights and then to stages live.

The big difficulty is in dealing with traditional broadcasters who often purchase (and price) content just to make sure that their rivals can’t get it. It’s something the government here has legislated on a couple of times.

Sometimes I take comfort in the fact that there is a parallel universe in which I'm winning both versions of VDS.

by omnevelnihil on Jun 6, 2011 9:26 AM EDT reply actions

I'm not familiar with the legality of such things

but I’ve always wondered if the UCI could subsidize some of the costs of television production for women’s races for a year or two. For media companies, it’s not hard to see why covering women’s races and their ostensibly niche market is a risk. If UCI subsidies could make that less of a risk to begin with, broadcasters could have the chance to see how they get on with it and then establish for themselves whether or not women’s racing is something worth continuing with.

by Skip Madness on Jun 6, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions

From what I remember

of a previous post that included some info about UCI funding (thanks fmk!), the UCI doesn’t really have much money to play around with like that.

But yes, some sort of subsidy or as others have suggested, a required broadcast of an associated women’s event as part of gaining the rights to a premium event (e.g. Paris-Roubaix) could work.

Ultimately though I think this is why the internet will win as a content delivery mechanism for this sort of product. There’s an interested and motivated global audience. Finding enough people in one traditional broadcast market to justify buying the footage is hard. Finding enough people around the world… much simpler (but still not easy).

Sometimes I take comfort in the fact that there is a parallel universe in which I'm winning both versions of VDS.

by omnevelnihil on Jun 7, 2011 4:48 AM EDT up reply actions

The attitude of ASO is the oddest

the only women’s races they run are Qatar and the Fleche Wallonne, neither of whiich are in France, the demise of the Grande Boucle was in part due to their legal objections over the words “Tour de France”, and one of the rumours about the loss of l’Aude suggested that the local council wanted to use the money to attract a stage finish in the Tour.

And French TV aren’t that much better. The women’s race there is webcast only (OK that suits us better, but it means that the race is invisible unless you actively go out and look for it), the organisers of Cholet Pays de Loire made a pretty direct invitation to France 3 during that broadcast but they didn’t turn up to cover his race, and the only mention women’s races ever get seems to be during local news broadcasts. Compare that with what RAI do..

by Monty. on Jun 7, 2011 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions

I had probably better not write what I actually think about this.

"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne

by civetta on Jun 10, 2011 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions

The trouble is that often executive A is justifying his bonus by supposedly getting extra earnings

and doesn’t realise that executive B is paying out all that same cash again for stuff that 30 years the different channels would have swapped for free.

But assuming that Marijn is talking about RAI (as they produce the most and the most professional coverage), then I’m a great fan of their RAI sports channels which seem to exist as much to promote participation in sport as to feed the couch potatoes. They seem to have cameras at the Italian championships and major events of just about every single sport around.

by Monty. on Jun 6, 2011 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually I think the big problem is that the industry as a whole

is used to thinking that 30seconds of footage is worth $x no matter what it is. That’s how things are priced and the prices are set somewhat arbitrarily. The model’s not really adapted to the modern landscape yet.

That said, it’s important to remember that broadcast rights are the single biggest earner for almost any sport and so there’s a lot for sports owners to protect before they’re going to be willing to explore new revenue models, with certain justification I suppose.

Sometimes I take comfort in the fact that there is a parallel universe in which I'm winning both versions of VDS.

by omnevelnihil on Jun 7, 2011 4:51 AM EDT up reply actions

What's the ultimate objective?

Does giving a couch potato the option of watching a half-hour highlight show of a women’s bike race on television have a net positive effect on cycling? Television is 20th century stuff. The internet is where it’s at now and women’s cycling is taking advantage of it, as this site and many others prove. While the relative obscurity of women’s cycling and its absence of the hype that accompanies other professional sports is part of its charm, it’s easy to understand that its followers would like to see the sport grow in terms of participants and events. Two things need to be done. Team sponsors that are willing to integrate riders into their marketing efforts need to be found. For instance, a clothing company sponsoring a team could use riders as models and spokespersons. The attractive, athletic, intelligent members of the women’s peloton are the sport’s greatest asset and using them to promote products is both business savvy and beneficial to the sport itself. The faces of ladies like Rochelle Gilmore, Hanka Kupfrenagel and Gunn-Rita Dahle-Flesjo should be on billboards all over the world.

Secondly, more effort has to be made by governing bodies and race organizations to lower the age of female participation. A focus must be established on junior teams that give adolescent girls a greater opportunity to make a choice between cycling and already established sports like basketball, running and so on. Getting its share of the greatest athletes at an early age is important for the growth of competitive cycling. Rather than a “kids race” at bigger events, there should junior competitions that include girls.

Worship at the altar of television, begging for crumbs from media moguls, isn’t the way to go for women’s cycling. Infiltration of the world of sales and marketing, creating stars, and increasing individual participation is.

by chuck martel on Jun 6, 2011 9:45 AM EDT reply actions

The ultimate objective is surely

having more riders, and more and better races… and having the chance to actually see those races on television.

What’s frustrating is that our aspirations of a willing viewership aren’t hypothetical – during the 2009 Worlds, the men’s and women’s time trials got identical viewing figures on British Eurosport (36,000 each). The women’s road race got 38,000 – a little less than two-thirds of the men’s road race, and enough to make it the fourth most-watched programme on British Eurosport that week.

I don’t agree that that the attractive, athletic, intelligent members of the women’s peloton are the sport’s greatest asset – the greatest asset is the riders who just want to race. Does that mean that media-savvy collaborations between sponsors and riders should be discouraged? No, definitely not, if riders are happy doing that then fine. But it shouldn’t be held out as some sort of centrepiece for the survival of women’s cycling. By putting the jerseys on and riding the bikes, they’re already doing their bit.

I agree there’s a lot to be gained from making routes into cycling easier for younger girls (the BC track programme have done pretty well with young talent, but sustaining a steady road scene requires much broader intervention than an elite, specialist track programme). But the crisis right now is the survival of races. Simple rule changes which Stef Wyman has advocated about men’s ProTour teams having to set aside fairly modest sums for women’s teams are surely easily achievable if there is the will at the UCI. But if the races are going to survive, they’ll be helped massively in the search for sponsorship if they can guarantee better media coverage,

by Skip Madness on Jun 6, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions

What does having more riders and better races

have to do with television? To your way of thinking, would the best kind of race be the Commonwealth Games in India, with no live spectators but TV coverage? And nobody should care if the peloton is composed of amoral cheats, as seem well represented in the male contingent? If all you care about is the race itself, and not the participants, why have women’s racing at all? And why should women’s racing have to piggy-back on the men’s game? If there isn’t enough interest to sustain women’s racing on its own, why should the men’s scene be forced to subsidize it? Women’s bike racing is a great sport but it has to be able to stand on its own, without begging from the media or coercing the men.

by chuck martel on Jun 6, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions

To my way of thinking

the best kind of race would not be the Commonwealth Games in India. I don’t want no live spectators. Nor do I believe that nobody should care if the peloton is composed of amoral cheats. Nor do I only care about the race itself. I’m not sure what led you to believe I think those things.

What I’m saying is it’s one thing having the races and the riders, but it would be nice to actually get to see them. I’m not sure what there is about that to provoke disagreement, it’s not clear exactly what angle you’re coming at this from.

Women’s racing doesn’t have to piggy-back on the men’s scene. But from what I’ve read most of the women want the same races as the men. They like Flanders and the Flèche because they’ve got the history, they’re iconic. They like the Giro and they want a Tour for the same reason. As far as teams go, there are alternatives to men and women sharing teams. Lots of women’s teams and men’s teams are happy enough divided, and that’s up to them. But no men’s team has to become a ProTour team. And if they want that licence, I think it’s reasonable that they should be contributing to an underfunded and malnourished side of the sport in order that more women get a chance to ride better races.

Supposing there really isn’t enough interest to sustain women’s racing, why should the men’s scene be forced to subsidise it in that case? Well, because they can. Why not? Why do did my taxes go towards funding the arts?

Nevertheless, the fundamental point you make at the end – that women’s racing needs to be able to stand on its own – is one I agree with working towards. In which case, you may not see mixed-gender teams as an end in itself; you may even see them as something to be rejected. But as a means to that end, it would provide an important injection of cash and stability which would give the media and fan support for women’s races the chance to grow. It’s like I suggested with subsidising TV coverage above – if it doesn’t get the oxygen of publicity in the first place it’s going to be hard to get the selling of the product off the ground at all.

by Skip Madness on Jun 6, 2011 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions

The angle that I'm coming from is that depending, hoping, dreaming that TV

is the holy grail for women’s cycling is b.s., even if you, personally wish to watch them on TV. That’s a paradigm from the 1960s. Things have changed. We have the internet, which is how we’re able to keep up with cycling now, even as you and I have been doing here. I personally haven’t had a television in over 20 years. I actually go and watch races, in person. OK, I didn’t make it to the Giro Donne last year, and didn’t see any TV coverage but I made do with what was available over the web. And i’m going to go watch a crit tomorrow night live. Philosophically, what is television coverage of an event anyway? Is it real? What do you actually get out of it, sitting in your Lazy-Boy with the phone ringing and the other distractions? Can you say that you’ve experienced the event, in even a vicarious way? I’ll argue not.

It would appear that for the foreseeable future cycle road racing will continue to be an event that is pretty much free for spectators except premium/VIP seating. While that encourages large crowds, it doesn’t produce much income for promoters in the usual way. It’s not like football, for instance. So the financial benefits to sponsors will have to come from somewhere else, effective promotion of their products. There will perhaps continue to be sponsors that simply take an active interest in cycling without demanding a return. They can’t be relied on for the long haul. Cycling has to forge commercial relationships with businesses that can use those relationships to positively affect their marketing. Women’s cycling, especially, has the raw material to make this work and can do it on their own. Even now, in the US Kirstin Armstrong is probably as well known as all but a handful of male cyclists. A business grabbing her as a spokesperson simply could not lose. Same goes for Evelyn Stevens, Shelly Olds, Mara Abbott, Amber Neben. These ladies are international stars, like Lindsay Vonn, and if they were used in the kind of promotional campaigns they could be, they would be even bigger stars and make cycling more visible as well.

Horse racing faces a similar issue as women’s cycling. Gambling is the raison d’etre for horse racing and for many decades was the only legal form of gambling in the US. Now there are many other options for gamblers and horse racing, which can require a certain amount of mental effort that not all gamblers are willing to engage in, has seen its customers desert the track for the casino. Track operators have been lobbying for alternative forms of gambling in their own facilities, cards, VLTs, etc, with funds from those activities being used to augment purses that have been depleted by smaller betting handle. If I’m a slot-player, why should there be an extra take-out from my play used to feed somebody’s horse? I want the money that’s left after operations of the casino and taxes given back to the player. If I’m not betting on horses, I don’t want to pay for it and I shouldn’t have to do so.

The same thing goes for cycling. If I’m a sponsor or team owner or rider or spectator and I’m involved in the men’s side of racing, how is it right that I have to make a financial commitment to the women? Forcing me to support women’s racing is going to encourage me to get out of it altogether. Women’s cycling is an exciting sport, more so than the men’s version, it’s not an appendage to their act. It might be able to find more success on its own.

by chuck martel on Jun 6, 2011 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions

You say we have the internet now to keep up with cycling

but we don’t really do we? We have the internet to keep up with results, blogs, photos and the odd few minutes of video. Sometimes something a bit longer. What about actually seeing a race develop? What about getting the excitement of watching it unfold on the fly in front of our eyes? The internet virtually never provides this, and when it does, it’s usually via streams of… television broadcasts.

I’m glad for you that you go and watch races in person. I was lucky enough to go and see the Flèche Wallonne this year and it a thrill. But unsurprisingly, I won’t be able to go and see the Bira. Or Trentino. Or the Giro. Or Plouay, Ardèche, Toscana or the World Championships. “Making do” with what the internet provides of these races is a poor replacement for getting good-quality broadcasts. And like I said before, the best of what the internet does cover of those races will be the stuff that comes from the television. The other stuff is nice, but it should be supplementary, not the main course.

You ask: “Philosophically, what is television coverage of an event anyway?” I’m not a philosopher. Television coverage of an event is recorded video images of that event being broadcast so that I can see what happens with my eyes, often as it happens live, rather than just reading about it.

What I get out of it is the pleasure of watching the action unfold. Of seeing the race develop and reach its climax. I am experiencing the event, yes. I watched the World Championships and Commonwealth Games road races and time trials from start to finish last year. I could have just clicked on the results on Cycling News, but I’d have missed out on the drama of it actually happening as I saw it. In the future I could also just read reviews of music and never listen to it (unless it’s live of course). But I like the listening, and I like the watching.

The financial benefits for sponsors in men’s cycling already have effective promotion of their products. The riders are moving billboards going out to televisions, newspapers, magazines and websites across the world. Why do tourism boards sponsor so many races? Because getting their area in front of millions of television viewers is good advertising. God knows there are plenty of problems with men’s cycling, but the basic commercial premise behind it is generally sensible and profitable. You’re writing this off as a source of betterment for women’s cycling for no clear reason that I can see, and coming up with a solution that not only doesn’t need to exist but could be highly problematic for teams: to employ “marketable” riders, or good riders? In your model, the marketable ones win out. I want women’s cycling to exist for the cycling, so a financing model that rewards based on sporting success is infinitely preferable.

I think we have a fundamental difference with regard to why men’s teams and races should be doing more to support female equivalents and I don’t see the point in pursuing it further. But you say that forcing sponsors of men’s cycling to support women’s racing will encourage them to get out of the sport altogether, when with well-coordinated policy it could encourage even broader exposure to broader markets.

Women’s cycling might be able to find more success on its own than with any of the suggestions I’m putting forward. It might. But it’s going mostly on its own at the moment. And it’s dying at the top level, completely emaciated, that’s why this topic is here. I think the suppositions involved with pursuing an even harder solo push are a hell of a lot riskier than the ones of integrating with some aspects of men’s cycling more closely.

by Skip Madness on Jun 7, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

So what it boils down to is that you want to be able to see women's cycling on TV

Fine. Nothing wrong with having goals. But rather than advocating the coercion of funding from men’s racing and their sponsors, why not set up your own video production company, negotiate the rights to record and broadcast the races, and sell the deal to sponsors and broadcasters? Convince the aristocracy of the men’s game that your ideas are viable and that adding women’s races to the men’s program makes sense. If you’re right, everybody wins. You’ll even be able to put some of the proceeds back into women’s racing. Your friends and acquaintances will want to be a part of it as well. Let us know how it goes. But you won’t have to. We’ll be able to see the races and know that you succeeded.

by chuck martel on Jun 7, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Let's see

- Someone with no knowledge of video production gives up job and embarks on lone ranger mission to save women’s cycling, sets up video production company creating content and somehow convinces broadcasters previously uninterested in what they see as a niche in a niche to purchase rights to ever-diminishing number of races.

- Cycling federation uses position of influence and authority to mandate men’s teams applying for the highest licence to dedicate small percentage of funding to corresponding women’s teams and for top men’s races to run women’s events, raising the profile of the sport in question as part of a joined-up, multi-faceted and targeted campaign to improve the lot of women who want to race.

Which of these two scenarios is really the more feasible.

Like I mentioned before, there’s a disagreement which is so fundamental that it won’t permit any sort of reconciliation between us: I think that coercing the individual stakeholders in men’s cycling into things for the good of more than just the individual stakeholders in men’s cycling has a place; you don’t. I’d rather see women’s cycling grow with the UCI embarking on a centrally-planned and co-ordinated mission to improve it by involving men’s cycling than risk it withering away because either it’s too proud to demand such a mission or thinks so little of itself that it has to start selling itself on how the riders look and not how they ride.

by Skip Madness on Jun 7, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Continuity

Another big reason for women riding the same races as the men as well as World Tour teams having both men and women racing for them is the continuity.

A casual men’s cycling fan is more likely to watch women race the Tour of Flanders, because they already know the prestige associated with the race. It is a race with prestige and a trusted brand.

Again, a men’s cycling fans are more likely to take an interest in women’s cycling if they know who to support. As the riders aren’t well known, there is an increased reliance on the teams to create the hook to grab the attention of the cycling fan.

Yes, women’s cycling should be strong enough to generate interest for itself however when the sport is already perceived as being weaker it is crucial to show that the women are strong and entertaining bike riders in a way that will impress and give them a reason to be fully engaged in what they are watching.

www.horizonfitnessrt.com

by S2_art on Jun 6, 2011 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I particularly agree about trying to convert fans from one side of the sport

to both…

And I’m still learning the women’s teams and landscape. So I certainly take your points about continuity.

Sometimes I take comfort in the fact that there is a parallel universe in which I'm winning both versions of VDS.

by omnevelnihil on Jun 7, 2011 4:55 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm possibly reading your comments wrong, but what's wrong with wanting to see bike racing?

I know I’m contributing to the misunderstanding, because I’ve realised when I say “television” I mean tv-like-in-the-uk-and-other-parts-of-Europe where there are different kinds of digital channels and the internet (so for me, the Worlds, streamed on the BBC “red button” and online, is all tv, just as their live programmes on the main channels are. That’s my bad, I should have made it clearer.

And while the having pretty riders getting endorsements is something that happens already, what happens if a rider ISN’T conventionally pretty? Or doesn’t want to do the modelling thing? Should she not be allowed to race? We certainly don’t say that for male sports stars – or male pop stars, for that matter, they can look like the back of a bus and be praised for what they actually do. I’m VERY uncomfortable about the Anna Kournikova affect and anything that puts looks above talent

by Sarah Connolly on Jun 7, 2011 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Ooops, replied in the wrong place!

by Sarah Connolly on Jun 7, 2011 3:41 AM EDT up reply actions

The other thing is, at the moment, big sponsorship IS tied into television viewing

I might not like that – and luckily there’s evidence of forward-thinking companies like Nederland Bloeit, HTC, AA Drink etc etc etc who can see past that model, but it is recognised, acknowledged barrier that a lot of companies who sponsor things don’t see the point unless people can see what they’re doing…

by Sarah Connolly on Jun 7, 2011 3:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm speculating here so correct me if I'm wrong

but I’m hoping that Chuck is simply trying to make a distinction between “television” and “video” or “content”.

Sometimes I take comfort in the fact that there is a parallel universe in which I'm winning both versions of VDS.

by omnevelnihil on Jun 7, 2011 4:57 AM EDT up reply actions

OK, let's look at another sport yet

How about professional golf? It’s a fixture on television. But which came first, the popularity of golf as a participant sport for millions of people world-wide or television coverage of a niche activity indulged in by country club habitues?

by chuck martel on Jun 7, 2011 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions

I really don't understand your objection to being able to SEE races

I mean, are you also advocating we stop having the men’s races on tv too?

by Sarah Connolly on Jun 7, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

It doesn't hold if you're implying that participation leads to coverage.

~~Millions~~ Billions of people worldwide ride bikes right now.

In either case it appears that I was mistaken in my understanding that you were meaning the difference between television and video.

Sometimes I take comfort in the fact that there is a parallel universe in which I'm winning both versions of VDS.

by omnevelnihil on Jun 8, 2011 4:06 AM EDT up reply actions

so true

Kitty Meow!
www.vanderkitten.com
www.vanderkittenracing.com

by Vanderkitten-Focus on Jun 7, 2011 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions

It's encouraging

that tomorrow’s highlights of Drenthe/Flèche are immediately following the Dauphiné. I seem to remember the first Binda/Flanders broadcast went out after 2300 on a Sunday, didn’t it?

by Skip Madness on Jun 6, 2011 11:33 AM EDT reply actions

Haven't had time to digest all of this, but...

…leaving only seven UCI-ranked racing days for the women in the whole of August

Surely this circumstance is utterly unacceptable and the federation, if it has any interest in governing women’s racing at all, needs to develop a sense of urgency about ensuring that there are actually races. Surely, at this point, we’re in a real crisis.

by Ed K on Jun 6, 2011 1:45 PM EDT reply actions

It is a really bad state of affairs

The calendar is really odd-looking this year – Qatar happens so early, then a break, then the Classics season, which is very intense…. then a forced break of about 3 weeks in May, where l’Aude (and l’Aude prep and recovery) was… then the stage racing, building up to the Giro Donne… then nothing at all in August, then (luckily) a full September, culminating in the Worlds (the calendar makes a bit more sense when the Worlds is in Europe, so that’s a good thing). So it’s periods of intense competition, with wind-downs that might suit some riders, but is a problems for others. In part 3, I will have a bit of a solution for that, but it would take cooperation…

by Sarah Connolly on Jun 7, 2011 3:48 AM EDT up reply actions

One thing that would be really helpful

would be if the teams themselves could get in to the habit of asking anyone they saw wielding a big, pro-type, video camera and wearing a media badge who they are working for and where that footage was intended for, then getting someone to tweet it. An awful lot of small stations put stuff up on the web nowadays, we try to find it but I’m sure we miss as much as we come across.

by Monty. on Jun 6, 2011 7:19 PM EDT reply actions

That is a GENIUS idea!

And so simple!

by Sarah Connolly on Jun 7, 2011 3:49 AM EDT up reply actions

I think one of the biggest problems is that of awareness – this is certainly something that we as a group on the internet can and do help with.

And it’s not just things like here. Obviously people at dedicated cycling sites will have some kind of vague interest, or at least if they don’t have an interest have at least a working knowledge of it. But until recently, Mara Abbott didn’t even have a wikipedia entry. In a sport with a cast of thousands, something like this can actually make a difference – people who just happen upon the women’s cycling on TV, or people who follow cycling but are casual fans, won’t necessarily be aware of CQranking or cyclingfever and their databases. And the casual fan won’t necessarily have the time, or the inclination, to find out anything further – a quick google and a quick wiki is all most of us ever do when we need to recall something quickly, right?

If you follow the updates on wikipedia, most major men’s races will be updated within minutes. Even races like the Tour of Qatar and the Volta ao Algarve have full race info, jersey progress tables. I wrote up the Giro Donne 2009 article from scratch myself, copying the formatting from the men’s event, digging up spreadsheets from the organisers for jersey progress tables. In January 2010. And half the main protagonists came up in red as links to nothing. It was immensely frustrating.

by UrlaubinPolen on Jun 7, 2011 7:02 PM EDT reply actions

Good show

Try & not feel frustrated, I guess … Just be happy that you could help out :) Don’t think of it as “done your bit” because that implies that you’ll only be happy when others do similar work. To expect that is probably not realistic so find intrinsic fulfilment in your own work.

by tedvdw on Jun 7, 2011 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I've just seen

(i.e. read on Alberto Rigamonti’s webpage) that the Multidigitaal.nl – Blauwe Stad TTT scheduled for 28th August has been cancelled, and the web address that it had, www.tttblauwestad.nl, now redirects to the Energiewachttour site. This race was also scheduled and cancelled last year, something to do with roadworks on the course as I remember. Picking the same date as Plouay probably wasn’t a good idea – Karl Lima tried to organise a race in Norway on that day last year but couldn’t get anyone to make the trip. Maybe Energiewacht will include a TTT next year?

Rigamonti also talks about Valkenburg HIlls/Holland HIlls being cancelled, but he’s wrong there. It went non-UCI and took place in March as the Parkhotel Rooding Hills Classic. I never found out why.

by Monty. on Jun 7, 2011 7:09 PM EDT reply actions