[quote="resal, Applying sense and market forces is wrong. Rigged markets remain rigged and defeat norms, for centuries if necessary. This is a rigged market - from the governance - women's 500m TT/ men's kilo, through to the male commentator who talks in so derogatory manner of women's races or in Hugh Porter's case often talks over the race about the next men's race. Sky are a massive part of the problem and it sickens me each time I read about their initiatives to grow the sport at the grass roots - only have aspiration if you are male.
quote]
I assume SKY do not preclude females attending Go ride events so presumably your criticism relates to pro team level issues. I struggle to understand the suggestions that SKY should have a women’s road team and blaming them for current apathy, as these arguments do not present any evidence. Having spent 20 years in sponsorship trying to convince companies that sponsorship is not patronage and should deliver a commercial return I cannot buy in to the emotional argument. Presumably, SKY has some communication objectives they wish to fulfil over the next few years. These will include a variety of promotional options of which sponsorship of a men’s cycling team is one element. If, for example, the objective is to increase subscriptions, then brand awareness in key target markets may be a precursor. Who generally makes the decision within a household as to whether to subscribe to SKY? Males or females or both? If it is usually males then heavy focus on a female target is unnecessary. If it is females, then there are many promotional opportunities that could target them. Sponsorship may not be optimal. Even if it is, non sport forms may be better than sport options. Even if it is sport, other female sports may be more effective than cycling. Just because a men’s cycling team contributes to one objective does not mean that a female cycle team can necessarily add anything.
Would you be happy if Sky withdraw all their support for cycling so they no longer represent a problem?
quote]
I assume SKY do not preclude females attending Go ride events so presumably your criticism relates to pro team level issues. I struggle to understand the suggestions that SKY should have a women’s road team and blaming them for current apathy, as these arguments do not present any evidence. Having spent 20 years in sponsorship trying to convince companies that sponsorship is not patronage and should deliver a commercial return I cannot buy in to the emotional argument. Presumably, SKY has some communication objectives they wish to fulfil over the next few years. These will include a variety of promotional options of which sponsorship of a men’s cycling team is one element. If, for example, the objective is to increase subscriptions, then brand awareness in key target markets may be a precursor. Who generally makes the decision within a household as to whether to subscribe to SKY? Males or females or both? If it is usually males then heavy focus on a female target is unnecessary. If it is females, then there are many promotional opportunities that could target them. Sponsorship may not be optimal. Even if it is, non sport forms may be better than sport options. Even if it is sport, other female sports may be more effective than cycling. Just because a men’s cycling team contributes to one objective does not mean that a female cycle team can necessarily add anything.
Would you be happy if Sky withdraw all their support for cycling so they no longer represent a problem?
Excellent !
