Interesting post Joe, completely agree that people want connection so fostering that the way to go.
In regards to teams and fans, I think maybe cycling has a difficult time of fans/sponsorship due to its lack of geographical stability for teams like you have in major team sports - not something that can be solved over night.
I am wondering though in more short term, maybe more fans at races is the bigger answer. Do you know if attendance of fans at races influences sponsorship for teams?
Thinking allowed surely increased viewership benefits all teams rather than just the bigger players.
Thinking of races, La Vuelta appears to have opportunity to tap into thanks to the culture of Spain.
Thanks for the comment Jack. I very much agree that geographical stability doesn't help teams, but I don't think it's the only point. I think it's more to do with the team's identities changing with the wind. Team's don't have a 'soul' because colours and branding change so easily with the coming and going of title sponsors.
Actually, I think we are currently in the best time to bring change to cycling. Thanks to gravel.
I come from the tech and startup world. Clayton Christensen once came up with the "Innovators Dilemma" concept: mature businesses are bad at innovating, not for a lack of intelligence but because they rationally prioritize their established business, efficiency, economies of scale, etc..
That works, until a disruptive new company comes in and ends up taking market share from the incumbent. Initially the disruptor has a much less capable product, simply good enough for a small market segment, one that's too small for the incumbent. But as the disruptor nature's, the product gets competitive, and usually better than the incumbent's.
You see where I'm getting. Gravel could well be the disruptor in cycling. Unlike in other disciplines, the UCI doesn't set the rules of the game. We are closer to basketball (NBA basketball coexists with FIBA) than road cycling. And that's the opportunity.
Some of the forces in gravel - mostly those that are native to gravel and not from the road - are much more forward-thinking than anyone in charge in road cycling, Bas Tietema and maybe Vaughters aside.
It's the playing field where new models can and do emerge. That's not to say all will be well. Failure is always an option. But it's a quickly developing ecosystem and if the right folks take the right decisions, it can go places.
Very well put, Joe. As others have mentioned, gravel has the opportunity to change this structure, in large part because there could be fewer stakeholders. At the world tour road level, the UCI, race owners, teams, and then individual athletes, none of whom have a geographic foothold, are too many competing forces with conflicting interests. The detriment to fans is this fractured media landscape that requires people in some countries to have four or more paid streaming subscriptions just to watch the races. I think it was perhaps snowboarding that went through the evolution of athletes, eventually owning the competitive leagues and events. In short course triathlon, Supertri is building a closed ecosystem of events, athletes, and media.
Another challenge are the parallel identities of trade teams and national teams. That's yet another discordant factor in the fan experience.
Interesting post Joe, completely agree that people want connection so fostering that the way to go.
In regards to teams and fans, I think maybe cycling has a difficult time of fans/sponsorship due to its lack of geographical stability for teams like you have in major team sports - not something that can be solved over night.
I am wondering though in more short term, maybe more fans at races is the bigger answer. Do you know if attendance of fans at races influences sponsorship for teams?
Thinking allowed surely increased viewership benefits all teams rather than just the bigger players.
Thinking of races, La Vuelta appears to have opportunity to tap into thanks to the culture of Spain.
Thanks for the comment Jack. I very much agree that geographical stability doesn't help teams, but I don't think it's the only point. I think it's more to do with the team's identities changing with the wind. Team's don't have a 'soul' because colours and branding change so easily with the coming and going of title sponsors.
On fan attendance, I'm not sure, to be honest.
Don't stop believing.
Actually, I think we are currently in the best time to bring change to cycling. Thanks to gravel.
I come from the tech and startup world. Clayton Christensen once came up with the "Innovators Dilemma" concept: mature businesses are bad at innovating, not for a lack of intelligence but because they rationally prioritize their established business, efficiency, economies of scale, etc..
That works, until a disruptive new company comes in and ends up taking market share from the incumbent. Initially the disruptor has a much less capable product, simply good enough for a small market segment, one that's too small for the incumbent. But as the disruptor nature's, the product gets competitive, and usually better than the incumbent's.
You see where I'm getting. Gravel could well be the disruptor in cycling. Unlike in other disciplines, the UCI doesn't set the rules of the game. We are closer to basketball (NBA basketball coexists with FIBA) than road cycling. And that's the opportunity.
Some of the forces in gravel - mostly those that are native to gravel and not from the road - are much more forward-thinking than anyone in charge in road cycling, Bas Tietema and maybe Vaughters aside.
It's the playing field where new models can and do emerge. That's not to say all will be well. Failure is always an option. But it's a quickly developing ecosystem and if the right folks take the right decisions, it can go places.
Very well put, Joe. As others have mentioned, gravel has the opportunity to change this structure, in large part because there could be fewer stakeholders. At the world tour road level, the UCI, race owners, teams, and then individual athletes, none of whom have a geographic foothold, are too many competing forces with conflicting interests. The detriment to fans is this fractured media landscape that requires people in some countries to have four or more paid streaming subscriptions just to watch the races. I think it was perhaps snowboarding that went through the evolution of athletes, eventually owning the competitive leagues and events. In short course triathlon, Supertri is building a closed ecosystem of events, athletes, and media.
Another challenge are the parallel identities of trade teams and national teams. That's yet another discordant factor in the fan experience.
Thanks for this Joe. Another typically smart post. Agree with your points. And, yes, that's me in the green jersey in front of MVDP in the photo!