Forum home› Road cycling forum› Road general

Why would a UK cycle magazine not allow this advert?

bernithebikerbernithebiker Posts: 4,148
edited September 2014 in Road general
It would seem that this ad is simply too racey for the average UK cyclist, and the risk of high blood pressure or cardiac arrest is deemed too high to allow it to be published.

Seems a bit odd to me, when you can pick up Page 3 for 50p.

«1

Posts

  • MoonbikerMoonbiker Posts: 1,706
    False advertizing?
  • HebdenBikerHebdenBiker Posts: 787
    Not racey but sexist.

    Maybe the magazine in question is committed to representing the whole of its readership fairly, rather than printing content which represents women as commodities.

    Yes you can buy the Sun for 50p. Maybe the mag in question is aiming higher.
    My Blog
  • jordan_217jordan_217 Posts: 2,580
    No brakes and no helmet. There's obvious safety implications. Tsk how irresponsible?!
    “Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    It might start a snurging epidemic.

    I am not a practitioner, but I would certainly draft her to the cafe stop 8)
  • foot_loosefoot_loose Posts: 72
    I can't imagine. Looks perfectly innocent to me but then I am old fashioned.
  • bernithebikerbernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    HebdenBiker wrote:
    Not racey but sexist.

    Maybe the magazine in question is committed to representing the whole of its readership fairly, rather than printing content which represents women as commodities.

    Yes you can buy the Sun for 50p. Maybe the mag in question is aiming higher.

    remind me not to come to one of your parties.......
  • Mikey23Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    Splutters into breakfast and furiously scribbles letter to the Times...
  • iPeteiPete Posts: 6,076
    meh, you asked for comment and i'd err towards what HebdenBiker said, it didn't fit their agenda, maybe they just objected to the lack of lycra on show?
  • MountainMonsterMountainMonster Posts: 7,423
    So having a picture of a woman on a bike portrays her as a commodity? She is not scantily clad, and the focus of the image is also on the backdrop, not purely on her.

    Shame not to print really, perhaps it will spur some more women into cycling!
    My London Road
  • lakesludditelakesluddite Posts: 1,328
    Is it because 'Do you want to ride bicycle with me?' Doesn't make sense? :?
  • bernithebikerbernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    lakesluddite wrote:
    Is it because 'Do you want to ride bicycle with me?' Doesn't make sense? :?

    I think the idea is that you can tell she's not English, hence the dodgy grammar, hence the extra appeal!
  • rajMANrajMAN Posts: 429
    The ads too much for me, I'm reaching for the Horlicks. Hope the Professionally Offended can recover from this one.
  • bernithebikerbernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    rajMAN wrote:
    The ads too much for me, I'm reaching for the Horlicks. Hope the Professionally Offended can recover from this one.

    indeed, on this basis, the girl modelling the Assos shorts can only be considered as hard porn...!
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    MountainMonster wrote:
    So having a picture of a woman on a bike portrays her as a commodity? She is not scantily clad, and the focus of the image is also on the backdrop, not purely on her.

    Shame not to print really, perhaps it will spur some more women into cycling!

    Your kidding right?

    The image is obviously sexual. Not that I think that should be an issue though.
    Would not say it portrays her as a commodity. There is no inference to paying her for anything.
    We either like sexy women or we do not. The fact is that we do.

    Far too much hypocrisy in this world. Balances are always hard to reach in advertising and fictional TV etc.

    Continent have a far better attitude to sex IMO.
  • cookeeemonstercookeeemonster Posts: 1,976
    Would you be happy if the girl in the picture (who we're supposed to get a hard on for - lets not beat around the bush so to speak) was your daughter/wife/mother?

    If so then you're not a hypocrite.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    That has nothing to do with it, but if she were a model for a bike advert then why would I have a problem?

    Surely I would have had a problem with her being a model in the first place rather than with the assignment that gave her work.

    I don't think we are meant to actually get a hard on over that advert.
    Its no different to a Channel advert.
    What do you think is wrong with the image anyway?

    Not sure I agree with the ad, but it just seems suggestive and meant to be funny.
    Do you have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality?
    Do you think Billy Piper is a high class call girl?
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,498
    cookeeemonster wrote:
    Would you be happy if the girl in the picture (who we're supposed to get a hard on for - lets not beat around the bush so to speak) was your daughter/wife/mother?

    If so then you're not a hypocrite.
    So what do we do with our attractive women? Cover them from head to toe? Burka?

    What about those who have a fettish for Burkas? How do we protect against them?

    and what about those blokes who find other blokes attractive when dressed in lycra ?

    Would it be simpler to blind everyone from birth?

    Btw - you can look at that image without getting a hard on ... but I guess you don't see pretty women often
  • gloomyandygloomyandy Posts: 520
    Perhaps the more important question is "Will the woman actually be there taking part in the advertised event", if not isn't the advert misleading?
  • MountainMonsterMountainMonster Posts: 7,423
    Carbonator wrote:
    MountainMonster wrote:
    So having a picture of a woman on a bike portrays her as a commodity? She is not scantily clad, and the focus of the image is also on the backdrop, not purely on her.

    Shame not to print really, perhaps it will spur some more women into cycling!

    Your kidding right?

    The image is obviously sexual. Not that I think that should be an issue though.
    Would not say it portrays her as a commodity. There is no inference to paying her for anything.
    We either like sexy women or we do not. The fact is that we do.

    Far too much hypocrisy in this world. Balances are always hard to reach in advertising and fictional TV etc.

    Continent have a far better attitude to sex IMO.

    Obviously sexual? Really? I don't think so. Is it because she has shorts on? If so, all men on bikes are sexual. Is it because she is turned at an angle? Don't think so either. Please explain what makes that image sexual, other than the fact she is attractive.
    My London Road
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    edited September 2014
    MountainMonster wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    MountainMonster wrote:
    So having a picture of a woman on a bike portrays her as a commodity? She is not scantily clad, and the focus of the image is also on the backdrop, not purely on her.

    Shame not to print really, perhaps it will spur some more women into cycling!

    Your kidding right?

    The image is obviously sexual. Not that I think that should be an issue though.
    Would not say it portrays her as a commodity. There is no inference to paying her for anything.
    We either like sexy women or we do not. The fact is that we do.

    Far too much hypocrisy in this world. Balances are always hard to reach in advertising and fictional TV etc.

    Continent have a far better attitude to sex IMO.

    Obviously sexual? Really? I don't think so. Is it because she has shorts on? If so, all men on bikes are sexual. Is it because she is turned at an angle? Don't think so either. Please explain what makes that image sexual, other than the fact she is attractive.

    Personally I do not find a men in shorts attractive, so her in shorts is sexually attractive to me, yes.
    She is not even wearing shorts, its a very short dress.
    Edit: With what looks like a massive split up the front (of the dress).

    How do you think babies are made? It usually starts with a man seeing a woman and finding her sexually attractive.
    If I were younger, unmarried, cycled past her, thought I had a chance, and had the bottle (maybe just the last three thinking about it :oops: ), I would stop and chat.

    I would not forcibly drag her off her bike and into a bush though :roll:
  • N0bodyOfTheGoatN0bodyOfTheGoat Posts: 4,375
    "I want a refund, I bought the product, but the woman in the advert never appeared for me to go cycling with." ;)
    ================
    2020 Voodoo Marasa
    2017 Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016
    2016 Voodoo Wazoo
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    MountainMonster wrote:
    Please explain what makes that image sexual, other than the fact she is attractive.

    Can you not hear her saying " allo monsieur, I am not wearing any panties, would you please accompany me to zat haystack on zis gorgeous summers day"?

    Oh.......... is it just me :oops:
  • cookeeemonstercookeeemonster Posts: 1,976
    Carbonator wrote:
    That has nothing to do with it, but if she were a model for a bike advert then why would I have a problem?

    Surely I would have had a problem with her being a model in the first place rather than with the assignment that gave her work.

    I don't think we are meant to actually get a hard on over that advert.
    Its no different to a Channel advert.
    What do you think is wrong with the image anyway?

    Not sure I agree with the ad, but it just seems suggestive and meant to be funny.
    Do you have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality?
    Do you think Billy Piper is a high class call girl?

    I dont think it's that bad a picture, but I dont think it's as funny as it's meant to possibly? be. My first impression was that it gave more of a sleazy (motor)biker mag feel to it, though maybe I got the wrong idea. I dont think women will look at this and think, "wow that's really funny and welcoming, I'll join that ride!". If it's jokey and even ironic then it's gotta be spot on else it dont work.
  • cookeeemonstercookeeemonster Posts: 1,976
    slowbike wrote:
    cookeeemonster wrote:
    Would you be happy if the girl in the picture (who we're supposed to get a hard on for - lets not beat around the bush so to speak) was your daughter/wife/mother?

    If so then you're not a hypocrite.
    So what do we do with our attractive women? Cover them from head to toe? Burka?

    What about those who have a fettish for Burkas? How do we protect against them?

    and what about those blokes who find other blokes attractive when dressed in lycra ?

    Would it be simpler to blind everyone from birth?

    Btw - you can look at that image without getting a hard on ... but I guess you don't see pretty women often - didn't say I got a hard on - read it again or dont

    Look fella it's a 1970's style ad in the modern world. Again, if it was trying to be funny then it's failed in my opinion - you may think otherwise.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,498
    cookeeemonster wrote:
    Look fella it's a 1970's style ad in the modern world. Again, if it was trying to be funny then it's failed in my opinion - you may think otherwise.

    I didn't think it was meant to be funny, it was just meant to get your attention ... in the majority of cases it's succeeded... Have you looked at the wording of the rest of the advert or possibly found the website too? If so, then it has worked even better ... and if you've booked having seen it then it's succeeded completely.

    What image would you use? A bunch of Sweating Mamils going up a hill? Very attractive ... not ... ! But more realistic as to what you could expect ...

    Anyway - what age group do you think they're targeting ?
  • cookeeemonstercookeeemonster Posts: 1,976
    slowbike wrote:
    cookeeemonster wrote:
    Look fella it's a 1970's style ad in the modern world. Again, if it was trying to be funny then it's failed in my opinion - you may think otherwise.

    I didn't think it was meant to be funny, it was just meant to get your attention ... in the majority of cases it's succeeded... Have you looked at the wording of the rest of the advert or possibly found the website too? If so, then it has worked even better ... and if you've booked having seen it then it's succeeded completely.

    What image would you use? A bunch of Sweating Mamils going up a hill? Very attractive ... not ... ! But more realistic as to what you could expect ...

    Anyway - what age group do you think they're targeting ?

    If someone had said that at the start then I don't think I'd have posted :)
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    edited September 2014
    cookeeemonster wrote:

    I dont think it's that bad a picture, but I dont think it's as funny as it's meant to possibly? be. My first impression was that it gave more of a sleazy (motor)biker mag feel to it, though maybe I got the wrong idea. I dont think women will look at this and think, "wow that's really funny and welcoming, I'll join that ride!". If it's jokey and even ironic then it's gotta be spot on else it dont work.

    Think we agree on just about everything about it (apart from whether its sexually provocative) so why are we arguing :lol:
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    Do we think its an actual 70's image, or new photo in a 70's style?

    What age group do you think its aimed at Slowbike? Men of all ages would like her wouldn't they?
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,498
    Carbonator wrote:
    What age group do you think its aimed at Slowbike? Men of all ages would like her wouldn't they?
    Not studying marketing I couldn't really answer your question properly - I can't see why (at face value) they wouldn't find the image pleasing to the eye.
    Of course, the old Pervs will be getting their magnifying glasses out to identify just what is wrong with the bicycle and why it shouldn't be used in such a publicity shot ... :p
  • bernithebikerbernithebiker Posts: 4,148
    Well this may shed more light on the various debates above.

    The poster below was the one finally used in the magazine as a substitute. Personally, I don't like it at all, doesn't do anything for me or draw my attention.



    This ad below is better IMO, but was never used. But I still prefer the girl one! (And so does my wife!)

Sign In or Register to comment.