Rapha Roadmap (and Lance)

Thigh_burn

Simon Mottram bigged up the forthcoming publication of the Rapha Roadmap in his start of year message. It seems that these are some of the key findings, none of which look revelatory.

But pgs 10-12 of that presentation are quite interesting and shows some self-awareness by them of not getting too involved in the pro-sport. Highlights are:

OVERALL IMPACT OF THE RAPHA ROADMAP

•The professional sport needs to become easier to understand, more accessible and exciting, if cycling is to become more popular with a greater fan base around the World •Professional cycling is a small driver of participation but developing the pro sport overall can have the beneft of increasing overall participation levels •Cycling can attract new fans and encourage more participation in organised events if we improve the sport and connect with a wider public audience •Growth in the sport increases the potential audience for Rapha’s products, but also provides opportunities for all of the sport’s vendors to grow the economy

IMPLICATIONS

•The Rapha Roadmap is an important experiment in “doing well by doing good” •Vendor involvement in sports can be a catalyst to help a sport to grow more quickly - and more responsibly •But what are the proper limits, and at what point does a vendor become overly infuential in its sport? •Vendors can be contributors and participants in governance, but must be fair and respectful to all the other stakeholders, as well as to the sport’s regulation

It was interesting to hear that Rapha are going on to the Stages podcast to talk about it. Shows that they're going big and continuing with global dominance. Also shows that Lance is very much coming in from the cold, if Rapha are happy to promote a big initiative with him.

rick_chasey

•The professional sport needs to become easier to understand, more accessible and exciting, if cycling is to become more popular with a greater fan base around the World.

Nah.

I'm pretty happy with what it is right now. Easier to understand/more accessible usually means dumbing the complexities down.

Greater fan base will inevitably mean more difficult access.

timoid.

Nah.

I'm pretty happy with what it is right now. Easier to understand/more accessible usually means dumbing the complexities down.

Greater fan base will inevitably mean more difficult access.

Agreed. Might mean more money for teams / riders, but worse / more restricted product for us.

bobmcstuff

Timoid. wrote:

Nah.

I'm pretty happy with what it is right now. Easier to understand/more accessible usually means dumbing the complexities down.

Greater fan base will inevitably mean more difficult access.

Agreed. Might mean more money for teams / riders, but worse / more restricted product for us.

Might also mean better depth of field as more kids get attracted to cycling.

rick_chasey

bobmcstuff wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Nah.

I'm pretty happy with what it is right now. Easier to understand/more accessible usually means dumbing the complexities down.

Greater fan base will inevitably mean more difficult access.

Agreed. Might mean more money for teams / riders, but worse / more restricted product for us.

Might also mean better depth of field as more kids get attracted to cycling.

Noooooo.

m.r.m.

The established base always feel like not letting anyone new in. It's a shame though, because everyone will benefit from the sport being bigger. At the moment TV coverage of races is pretty terrible (at least in Germany). Would love to see greater improvement in quality and quantity with better production values. Would love to see cycling receive the coverage globally it receives in Belgium during the cobbled classics.

I'm sure if that were to happen many things would change, but I still see it as a net win.

ddraver

Cycling requires a long period of nothing happening in order to create the opportunities for exciting things to happen. Much like test cricket therefore it will never have a large audience.

There is no way to solve this problem. Twenty20 Cycling or Darts Cycling is Cyclocross and that still doesnt have a wide audience. If you want to make it more "extreme" then you have DH.

There comes a point when people are just going to have to get over it (and stop showing full length stages, especially when it's obvious that nothing is going to happen for 99% of them)

Vino'sGhost

Its already 50times more popular than it was twenty years ago. And there is more strength in depth. Just look at team skys welsh team as a local example.

No_Ta_Doctor

I don't think cycling really lends itself to the mass market. You need to have a fair amount of commitment to it to even have a chance of understanding what's going on. Add that to the fact - as ddraver points out above - that there's a lot of not much happening that has to happen first and you're on a hiding to nothing.

Things that could possibly help, without actually changing cycling:

1) Make the teams and riders more easily identifiable - it really shouldn't be that hard to work out who the riders are
2) Better timing info during races - gaps, who is in which group etc. We always spend a lot of energy trying to work out who made the split and who got dropped. Some of this is already improving with GPS tracking.
3) Decent highlights and analysis - something like Cosmo's "how the race was won" but less fixated on amusing banter. There's so much going on tactically that is missed by commentators, even good ones, and so much that is misinterpreted by the shit ones. To give new viewers an idea of what actually happened in a race, and give them the tools to understand what they're seeing when watching live, they need some in depth explaining. And for those of us that missed a race, we'd like it too.
4) More cameras - including GoPro's etc on all bikes - these should be available as live cuts during transmission or for a quick "rewind to the action" to show what just happened. This isn't to show just how insane a bunch sprint is, but to be able to see how a gap formed and who missed it etc.

Things we don't need:

1) Gimmicks. Power output really isn't that interesting, unless you can draw some conclusions about what's going on tactically in the race from it.
2) Simplification - cycling is complex, that's why we love it
3) Daft madey-uppey competitions - whether they're new race formats or weird in-race bonuses. See gimmicks.

ben@31

What's the problem? I thought cycling is more popular now than it has been in decades.

ben@31

Is it right for a "vendor" like Rapha to interfere with professional sport? Why should Rapha have any influence over the UCI or ASO ?
I don't get why Rapha think they have some entitlement?
It's almost corporate lobbying in politics.

rick_chasey

ben@31 wrote:

What's the problem? I thought cycling is more popular now than it has been in decades.

Exactly that

Wheelspinner

ben@31 wrote:

Is it right for a "vendor" like Rapha to interfere with professional sport? Why should Rapha have any influence over the UCI or ASO ?
I don't get why Rapha think they have some entitlement?
It's almost corporate lobbying in politics.

Well, UCI is really the referee in the game, but ASO is absolutely just another Vendor as you call them. They're selling the race coverage to make money. It's the sole reason they exist.

Thigh_burn

ben@31 wrote:

Is it right for a "vendor" like Rapha to interfere with professional sport? Why should Rapha have any influence over the UCI or ASO ?
I don't get why Rapha think they have some entitlement?
It's almost corporate lobbying in politics.

In the powerpoint I linked to, they do acknowledge the problem with them (or anyone) having too much influence and the challenge that faces.

To your point on corporate lobbying, personally I think that is absolutely fine. I have no issue with it, much as I have no problem with Rapha expounding on the industry. These are influential entities that employ lots of people, that earn money and do influence the sport / industry / politics.

The time lobbying becomes problematic is if corruption or state capture is involved. And unless you're in places like South Africa, it is nothing other than conspiracy theory.

jimmythecuckoo

Rick Chasey wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

What's the problem? I thought cycling is more popular now than it has been in decades.

Exactly that

LOL

Early post of the year contender that...