Is it me .......... with Bike Radar ????

daz51

Ok guys,

time for a bit of CC regarding beginners to the cycling.

Most new cyclists have little money to spend to get into the sport. I had about £400 and stretched bit more for the bike i wanted

anyway why is the majority of the bike reviews you do have bikes costing £1500 ++++,

come on bike radar review what realistic people can afford etc.
your accessories reviews are brill and are realistic,

this is in the beginner section so what do all you beginners think ???

Eat My Dust

People just like reading about top end stuff! Take a home magazine, it covers houses worth millions. Car magazine, mostly expensive cars etc etc.

C+ does occassionaly have review of budget bikes, but when you're talking about £500 bikes there more or less all the same.

andy_wrx

I haven't got the mag in front of me to remember the precise details, but the latest issue reviews 6 bikes priced from (something like...) £1450 to £3500

The £1450 Trek Madone is described as 'very affordable' or something similar...

And it talks about one (£1800 Giant SCR ?) as having handling which was 'beginner-friendly' rather than for 'experienced, hard-core' riders.


Clearly there are quite a few 30- and 40-something riders with a chunk of money coming into cycling and buying £1500+ carbon-fibre bikes
(a large proportion of the field on a sportive )
- perhaps this is what Future think of as 'beginners' ?

killiekosmos

Perhaps C+ could do reports on VERY cheap bikes and try to explain why it might be better to buy something a bit better which should be lighter, more reliable etc....

They could test stuff from Tesco, JB, Argos and Halfords.

It would also be useful to do reports on the likes of Raleigh and Claub Butler bikes which are sub £300

thexvw

Another way of looking at it is you may not be able to afford the new bikes being reviewed now, but you might be able to when they are discounted next year when they are last years bikes or a few years down the line when they are on ebay.

redddraggon

It's you, plenty of cyclists spend loads more than £1500 on bikes.

whyamihere

http://www.future-advertising.co.uk/ads ... 5&print=72

It's useful to look at the target demographic, and the people who surveys say read C+. As you can see from the link, the 'average' C+ reader is 45, with an income of £38000. BikeRadar also serves ProCycling, which has a younger, even more well off audience:

http://www.future-advertising.co.uk/ads ... 6&print=99

If you look at the BikeRadar audience, 70% of us are ABC1 social grades, which means that the money is likely to be there:

http://www.future-advertising.co.uk/ads ... ewmedia=99

The fact is, they can't accommodate for everybody all the time, so they choose to serve the most populous of their readers first, and everyone else occasionally.

CrookedCucumber

thexvw wrote:

Another way of looking at it is you may not be able to afford the new bikes being reviewed now, but you might be able to when they are discounted next year when they are last years bikes or a few years down the line when they are on ebay.

I'm never going to be able to afford a bike that sells for £1500 or more, however much it's discounted, even when it finally ends up second hand. It's not just out of my budget, it's on a completely different planet to my budget.

So I don't read the reviews. No point, really.

Kafka\'s Doll

It's 'Cycling Plus' Not 'What Bike?'. That is, people who read it will already have a bike -- probably more than one. That being the case, I'm not sure that a significant percentage would be looking to spend £300 on the next one...

Eat My Dust

whyamihere wrote:

the 'average' C+ reader is 45, with an income of £38000.

I think you'll find that Spen666 is to blame for the unrealistic "average" income!!

andy_wrx

whyamihere wrote:

http://www.future-advertising.co.uk/ads/portfolio/print.jsp?brand=85&print=72

It's useful to look at the target demographic, and the people who surveys say read C+. As you can see from the link, the 'average' C+ reader is 45, with an income of £38000. BikeRadar also serves ProCycling, which has a younger, even more well off audience:

http://www.future-advertising.co.uk/ads ... 6&print=99

If you look at the BikeRadar audience, 70% of us are ABC1 social grades, which means that the money is likely to be there:

http://www.future-advertising.co.uk/ads ... ewmedia=99

The fact is, they can't accommodate for everybody all the time, so they choose to serve the most populous of their readers first, and everyone else occasionally.

I love it - is the data from these reader surveys actually accurate ?

C+ : average age 45, av income £38.5K
ProC : average age 37, av income £54K
MBUK : average age 21, av income £33K
WMB : average age 36, av income £41K

Max_Man

andy_wrx wrote:

I love it - is the data from these reader surveys actually accurate ?

C+ : average age 45, av income £38.5K
ProC : average age 37, av income £54K
MBUK : average age 21, av income £33K
WMB : average age 36, av income £41K

Doesn't look accurate to me. (right, time for that pay talk with the boss.)

Kafka\'s Doll

andy_wrx wrote:

MBUK : average age 21, av income £33K

Those are some decidedly non-average 21-year-olds we have there.

CrookedCucumber

Kafka\'s Doll wrote:

It's 'Cycling Plus' Not 'What Bike?'. That is, people who read it will already have a bike -- probably more than one. That being the case, I'm not sure that a significant percentage would be looking to spend £300 on the next one...

Maybe; but, on the other hand, I'm not sure that a significant proportion would be looking to spend £2000+ either. I find that, as I get older -- or, rather, as my kids get older -- the amount of money I have to spend on bikes is decreasing. It's very likely that if I have to buy a new bike in a couple of years time it will be less expensive than the one I have now. The bike I have now (a Tricross) was less expensive than the one I had before it.

The fact is that most cyclists, even the keenest of cyclists, don't buy all that many bikes. I've bought about ten bikes since I was 20 years old, that's an average of one every 2-3 years. I don't know how typical that is. In any case, I would imagine that most people reading these reviews are not planning on buying any bike in the short term, whatever the price.

So I presume that these reviews are not really there to assist a genuine purchasing decision -- they're there because cyclists like reading about fancy hardware.

graham_g

I suspect that those are 'household income' figures.

Eat My Dust

CrookedCucumber wrote:

that's an average of one every 2-3 years. I don't know how typical that is.

I've had 4 new bikes in 4 years!!!! :oops:

gtr mart

interesting ave salary figures. Would suggest the WMB one is probably about right, not sure about the proC and C+ but the mbuk ave salary strikes me as asperational salary as apposed to current salary

I was a member on a skyline forum (as in the car) that appeard to mainly consist of 'mature' well established people. There was a salary pole done and the figures werent as high as I though they would be.

of course some of the people were earning big big bucks. if possible, maybe someone should set up a salary pole on here. Would be quite interesting.

Linking back to this the original post, i think an issue is that bikes are generally available on 0% finance. I just bought my first road bike and bought a carbon frame Trek and after the initial deposit is only about £90 month. Thats easy to afford which is why most people can afford 'entry level' bikes that are £1500

Kafka\'s Doll

CrookedCucumber wrote:

Kafka\'s Doll wrote:

It's 'Cycling Plus' Not 'What Bike?'. That is, people who read it will already have a bike -- probably more than one. That being the case, I'm not sure that a significant percentage would be looking to spend £300 on the next one...

Maybe; but, on the other hand, I'm not sure that a significant proportion would be looking to spend £2000+ either. I find that, as I get older -- or, rather, as my kids get older -- the amount of money I have to spend on bikes is decreasing. It's very likely that if I have to buy a new bike in a couple of years time it will be less expensive than the one I have now. The bike I have now (a Tricross) was less expensive than the one I had before it.

The fact is that most cyclists, even the keenest of cyclists, don't buy all that many bikes. I've bought about ten bikes since I was 20 years old, that's an average of one every 2-3 years. I don't know how typical that is. In any case, I would imagine that most people reading these reviews are not planning on buying any bike in the short term, whatever the price.

So I presume that these reviews are not really there to assist a genuine purchasing decision -- they're there because cyclists like reading about fancy hardware.

I don't doubt that your last paragraph is true. But I would also say that initiatives such as cyclescheme (in which you can buy a £1500 bike for about £70 per month, half the cost of what my season ticket would be) have changed the rules on affordability somewhat.

juggler

i would say that for most enthusiast riders i.e. reader of C+, procycling, £1500 would be perfectly reasonable purchase price and not way off the mark. Going to sportives see lots of high end bikes, carbon fibre frames pretty much the norm now on those rides, so any one reading a magazine and looking at reviews is going to be looking for their 'next bike' which will be a notch up on the one they have now.

Anyway, i don;t think it's expensive compared to other hobbies definitely not. You have one major purchase and then using it out on the road if pretty much free for years to come, no gym memberships/entrance fees etc.

Aside from that C+ have run comparison tests on low end bikes around £500. We all want to see what's new at the top end and then it trickles down enventually to the lower end of the market, look at 10 speed groupsets, carbon fibre etc.

daz51

My point is ........... and what i tried to explain ......... Is that when i wanted to purchase my first bike i found that Bike radar had very little reviews to help me.

There must be others who only have £500 - £600 to spend on a new bike yet can only see £1500 + bikes reviewed on bike Radar ???????????

juggler

C+ definitely ran a comparison test of £400-£500 bikes a while back

redddraggon

daz51 wrote:

My point is ........... and what i tried to explain ......... Is that when i wanted to purchase my first bike i found that Bike radar had very little reviews to help me.

There must be others who only have £500 - £600 to spend on a new bike yet can only see £1500 + bikes reviewed on bike Radar ???????????

Well? As has been explained previously you're not the demographic they are targeting. There's more in it for them to review the more expensive bikes.

morrisje

The average salaries quoted for the readers of each magazine seem reasonable to me. I work in Canary Wharf where the published average salary is £70k plus. The local Evans is stuffed full of £3k bikes. I do think that if you are young then £1.5k for a bike is a lot but then you can't have everything straightaway. Also many people will do without another luxury item such as expensive car to buy a bike of their dreams. Everyone I cycle with has good quality bikes, some bought them on a whim, some saved for a long time.
Cheap bikes just arn't interesting to read about. Everyone wants to aspire to buying the best and for many the best can be realised.

FSR_XC

Love these earnings figures.

I work in recruitment in Cornwall. Average income here is less than £20k. As for management, if you are happy earning £30k in a senior role, move to Cornwall ! ! ! !


Re: bike reviews.
Surely at least 75% of bikes sold cost less than £1k, yet 75% of reviews are for bikes costing £1k+

Is this what the consumer wants . . . . or what the reviewer wants?

One area that seems to have been overlooked by the mags is Cycle Scheme. How about a review of what's the best bike to get on the scheme. This could be slit into 'a bike for training', 'for commuting', 'something you could race' and also mtb's. All would be have to be less than £1k.

CrookedCucumber

morrisje wrote:

Cheap bikes just arn't interesting to read about.

They are if that's your budget.

But, as you say, Cycling Plus is not targeting students on a tight budget, or middle-aged men like me with greater outgoings than incomings. It's targeting relatively affluent people in their 20s and 30s with money to spend and an interest in sports cycling.

And good luck to them.

I don't read cycling mags regularly because I'm not in the target readership for any of them, so far as I can tell. I'm not interested in racing, for a start. What aspirations I had to be a competitive cyclist I left behind twenty years ago -- life moves on; other challenges come along.

It would be good if there were a mag called something like `everyday cycling' which focussed on cycling for pleasure, commuting, family cycling, repairs and maintenance, stretching your budget, and reviews of affordable kit. The problem is that I might be the only person who would subscribe to it

yorkshireraw

despite the cover price you're charged for a magazine, most of them will still rely heavily on the income from advertising I guess. The more affordable brands won't be into press advertising as it would force them to increase their prices to cover costs, hence ruining their 'affordable' positioning. Therefore its a bit of quid (!) pro quo that mags funded by adveritsing will carry advertising for more expensive kit, and the advertisers righlty expect the editorial side of the mag (i.e. reviews etc) to cover that sort of product.

andy_wrx

CrookedCucumber wrote:

I don't read cycling mags regularly because I'm not in the target readership for any of them, so far as I can tell. I'm not interested in racing, for a start. What aspirations I had to be a competitive cyclist I left behind twenty years ago -- life moves on; other challenges come along.

It would be good if there were a mag called something like `everyday cycling' which focussed on cycling for pleasure, commuting, family cycling, repairs and maintenance, stretching your budget, and reviews of affordable kit. The problem is that I might be the only person who would subscribe to it

Well if those are your interests, CrookedCucumber, have you not considered joining CTC ?
Those are the issues that they compaign about and there's quite a lot about them in their magazine (plus quite a bit of touring stuff which you might not want to read)

morrisje

The CTC magazine certainly deals with the more basic aspects of cycling. There was an article in the last one about bikes for less than £50. Most of it is dedicated to cycling for pleasure and as a means of transport rather than wanna be racers.

Anyway I'm off to spend my city bonus on a Scott Addict

nickwill

FSR_XC wrote:

Re: bike reviews.
Surely at least 75% of bikes sold cost less than £1k, yet 75% of reviews are for bikes costing £1k+

Is this what the consumer wants . . . . or what the reviewer wants?

I would have thought that a majority of enthusiastic cyclists spend £1K at least on their best bike.
Certainly most of the people I ride with have more expensive bikes than that. 75% of bikes sold may well cost under that figure, but my guess is that many of these would not be bought by regular cyclists. C+ and Bike Radar are targeting enthusiastic cyclists for whom cycling is a main hobby.
Having said that , my first road bike was an end of line bargain from Ribble which cost the princely sum of £350. Once I got going though, I felt the need for a better bike and breached the £1500 barrier 2 years later.

CrookedCucumber

I think it's perfectly reasonable to spend > £1500 or whatever on a bike, if you can afford it and cycling is a big deal to you. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to have a magazine, or even many magazines, dedicated to people who are in the fortunate position of having that amount of money to spend.

But it must also be reasonable, surely, to be an enthusiastic cyclist and have no wish, or no capacity, to spend that amount of money on a bike.

I think it worries me just a little that there is an undercurrent to this discussion, something like``serious cyclists spend serious money''. I think that's not a very good attitude to have, but it's one that magazines pander to because it helps their advertising revenue.

I consider myself a serious cyclist -- I cycle every day, I'm indoctrinating my kids into cycling, I've cycled in about a dozen different countries, I used to race, and I can repair a broken derailleur by the roadside if I have to. There aren't many things you can do on a bike that I haven't done.

But I don't feel the urge to spend thousands of pounds on a bike. I just don't. These days, of course, I couldn't afford to even if I did. But even in my racing days I didn't spend that amount of money.

[Parlty, I guess, that was because I was never at the top level of competition. If I spent an extra thousand quid, maybe I would have come in 75th rather than 77th, if you see what I mean . But that's beside the point]

I noticed the same sort of thing in the discussion of Aldi cycling kit last week -- ``you can't be a real cyclist if you only spend £3.99 (or whatever it was) on shorts''. Well, you can.

Anonymous

I thought £300 for a bike was expensive!.