Why would a UK cycle magazine not allow this advert?

2»

Comments

  • cookeeemonster
    cookeeemonster Posts: 1,991
    Carbonator wrote:
    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:

    Tin'ternet, innit? ;)
  • HebdenBiker
    HebdenBiker Posts: 787
    bernithebiker wrote:
    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.......

    Please don't start a thread inviting debate, then snipe at the responses.
    My Blog
  • kamiokande
    kamiokande Posts: 55
    I don't find the original advert offensive, but just see it as a bit juvenile. Would it get my attention? Yes. Would it make me want to go on a bike tour with that company? No. It has a 'Benny Hill on a 18-30 holiday - with bikes' vibe.
  • mattsccm
    mattsccm Posts: 409
    how about asking the magazine rather than relying on the great uninformed guessing?
  • dilatory
    dilatory Posts: 565
    We all seem to be ignoring the fact that it's a ghastly advert and if you're going to pay for ad space, pay for a competent designer too.

    I'm assuming by your file names these adverts were submitted to Rouleur magazine. It's a fantastically designed magazine and I wouldn't be surprised if these were rejected because they're so eye-wateringly poor in comparison.
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    clearly because she isn't wearing a helmet
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • barrowmatt
    barrowmatt Posts: 104
    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.

    I'd be very happy if she was my wife :D
  • shockedsoshocked
    shockedsoshocked Posts: 4,021
    If it was Cycling Weekly was it because you were advertising an actual race and not a sportive?
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • jordan_217
    jordan_217 Posts: 2,580
    ShockedSoShocked wrote:
    If it was Cycling Weekly was it because you were advertising an actual race and not a sportive?

    :lol::lol::lol:
    “Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”
  • awavey
    awavey Posts: 2,368
    Carbonator wrote:
    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).

    looks more like a playsuit to me, like a blousy button up top with combined shorts, which appears like a short dress but is actually lot less revealing, certainly on a bike.

    I dont know if I find the actual picture sexist, without the text, Im sure places like a Topshop would happily use it to promote their latest clothing lines without any problem at all. Its just with the text I guess which seems a bit out of place for what its selling ie TdF holiday bike tours, and seems to be spectacularly missing the mark as a result, I can see why a magazine might turn it down, the alternates seem like they come from completely different ad design companies in comparison.

Categories