Search Results for “specialized” – Page 2

Search Results : specialized

High-tech DIY

Bikes Comments Off

Mar 052012

Demon Frameworks' Co-winner of 'Best Road Bike' at NAHBS

While virtually the entire bike industry is on the way to Taiwan for the Taipei International Cycle Show, a very different group of guys capable of making bicycles all by themselves and growing considerably more interesting facial hair has just wrapped up another successful North American Handmade Bicycle Show. The contrast between the two shows is pretty striking and says something about the diversity of the bike industry. That seven dollar mass-produced kids’ bikes can exist under the same general umbrella as high-priced labors of love like Tom Warmerdam’s incredible Demon Frameworks bikes (above) seems somehow much more shocking than Bugattis and Dacias both being considered “cars.” We’re some diverse folk.

The trademark advantage of hand-built bikes over the big production brands is usually an emphasis on artistry and detail, unique aesthetic traits, while the big guys tend to own technology. Don’t get me wrong: Crumpton and company are doing some stunning things with carbon fiber, but the big guns naturally tend to be the innovators when it comes to materials and engineering. That’s because they’ve built companies geared toward selling enough product to raise capital that gets reinvested in new technology. While you can argue (convincingly) that they often waste that development money solving problems that don’t exist, or making all new problems, the big guys are driving the industry forward, and generally they get the job done and continue to improve bikes. Unfortunately, very little of this technological development goes on entirely within their walls.

Right now, the reality is that if you want bicycle technology, it’s impossible to avoid outsourcing production, especially to Taiwan or China, where bike manufacturing is–frankly–far more advanced and serious a business than it is in most other countries, including the U.S. More unfortunate is the fact that a small number of factories in Taiwan and China produce the majority of product like carbon fiber bicycle frames. Again, if they’re the best at it, more power to them but at some point (that most of you have no doubt noticed we’ve already reached) you begin to lose diversity from one mass-produced bike brand to another. For companies that haven’t even bothered to employ engineers and designers, you also cede design control, which means your marketing department can’t even distinguish your products from the competitions’ products. I know of multiple U.S. bike brands who are essentially shells for their respective Chinese factories, and it shows in their product bullet points. “High-modulus carbon fiber” is probably still the funniest, except for “ultra-high-modulus carbon fiber,” which is even funnier. There are bike companies in the U.S., for instance, that could not–for a million bucks–explain why their frames are shaped the way they are–I mean other than for “vertical compliance” and “torsional stiffness.”

I think it’d be really great if that wasn’t the case.

To be sure, some of the people at Handmade are choosing frame shapes based solely on what looks cool, which isn’t a particularly scientific approach, but at least the same person welding or bonding is the one making the call. And I think this has room to improve drastically over the next ten years.

Design and development innovations like 3D printing and Solidworks (which is surprisingly easy to use for thinking up designs and testing them, given how ridiculously powerful it is) are good signs, and suggest we might yet have a future in which, say, a small component manufacturer could design a viable suspension fork. Sure, the technology necessary to really empower more of us to make interesting and legitimate products is still probably a decade away (if it happens at all), but I’m hopeful. Given all the recent focus on the “new normal” American economy and the decline of the manufacturing jobs that created our middle-class, I think the best chance we have of becoming a leader in manufacturing in the future may come from high-tech DIY. We’re not there yet, and maybe we never will be, but how wonderful would it be to see a Hand Built show that included more complex technology? How great would it be for guys like Frank the Welder to be able to design and produce bikes using at least some of the same production technology as Specialized or Trek? Some interesting ideas tend to always find their way out into the world. The technology necessary to make that happen for bicycle is only getting better. What’s the future equivalent of Keith Bontrager’s dumpster diving? I’m hoping it’s out there.

Supply Chain Reaction

Bikes, E-commerce Comments Off

Feb 212012

If you’re a dealer cog in the complex drive train of bicycle sales, a big gear in your system started turning last weekend. You might not have felt it yet, but you will.

This was the first year I didn’t attend Frostbike, a mammoth bike industry get together at the mothership of the industry’s most formidable distributor, Quality Bicycle Products, in Minneapolis. I’d like to think I didn’t attend because there just wasn’t any challenge in it, given the incredibly mild weather the Twin Cities had this year–at least, compared to last year, when our flights home were canceled and we had to rent a car and idle through a 300-mile white-out at a blistering fifteen miles an hour while subsisting on cheese curds and counting wrecked cars to pass the time. Sadly, not attending this year means I missed something that’s been many years in the making. Bicycle Retailer is describing it as a “war”. The mighty Q’s El Presidente and Raison d’Etre All in One, Steve Flagg, called out some large retailers, including Amazon, in a pretty unequivocal way:

“I believe that our industry is losing the war against the Chain Reactions, the Wiggles, the Amazons. We think that together with all of you we can address this problem.”

Well damn. This is a tremendous statement. If it doesn’t seem to tremendous consider that QBP’s headquarters is very much in Minnesota, where the average denizen could be handed a foamy-mouthed possum instead of a burger at a drive-through window, and just politely drive away for fear of hassling the store manager and maybe getting somebody in trouble. In fact, this statement translates from the native Midwestern parlance just about like this:

And just what does QBP intend to do about it? According to BRAIN’s article, Flagg is quoted as telling the gathered dealers:

Via mobile device, a customer in a shop could log on to a QBP service with access to its stores’ inventory and search for a specific product. A map would pop up indicating the nearest shops that have the product in stock or that will have it in a predetermined number of days.

If a retailer is selected for same-day pickup, the customer would pay for it online and then be asked if they want the product installed at the shop. Flagg noted this would play to local dealers’ key strength and offer what online competitors can’t: service, warranty information and deep product knowledge.

“I believe we have the capacity in 2012 to do this.”

BRAIN has a known weakness in what I believe is generally considered “journalism” and involves things like follow-up questions, and, having not been there, I’m left to wonder if Flagg was merely musing here (as he did one year when he asked the gathered dealers clamoring for him to basically make them all web sites why he shouldn’t just become the biggest on-line dealer himself), or if this technology is on the short list of to-dos at QBP. Even if this idea is only that, though–merely an idea–it marks a technological answer to the problem of mobile price shopping apps released by the likes of Amazon–an issue heretofore only addressed by Specialized, who only whined about it and used for their own political ends. To be sure, QBP stands to experience their own political gains–not to mention top line growth–in pursuing something like this, but a trademark QBP distinction is also evident: this helps local dealers.

But showing us a shiny new weapon in the battle for independent bike shops is only a small part of the significance of this statement. I’ve long been rambling on about how local bike shops need to get their asses on the Internet and start staking their claim to bicycles in the digital age, or stop whining, give up and become a repair-only shop.This newly announced stance by the major player in the wholesale distribution space is a big deal for reasons that might not initially be so obvious. In singling out a particular type of massive on-line retailer–the digital equivalent of Walmart–and pitching a new mobile technology for local shops, Flagg is legitimizing the Internet as a means of selling bicycle parts.

The minute you’re pro-actively heading onto the web to pursue sales, you are an “Internet retailer,” and this is precisely what Flagg had to sell at Frostbike this year. Whether the mobile app involved takes us to a local shop’s web site to make a purchase, or tells us where we can walk in their door is, ultimately, inconsequential here. He is suggesting the IBD move from “gatherer” to “hunter.” That’s a big deal. More importantly, he’s letting us all know this is not a drill, and he’s not a guy you should ignore. Even if Flagg wasn’t one of the smartest people in the industry, listening to everything he says very carefully would be wise, if only because of the huge quantities of industry intelligence and analytics his company is constantly gathering. Add the fact that he is one of the smartest guys in this or any other industry, and you’re looking at a genuine warning for all IBDs. Far be it for me to say I told you so, but with or without QBP’s help, dealers need to do something now.

The Other Side

Bikes, Swine Comments Off

Feb 062012

Position Available, Leicestershire, UK

After reading Friday’s bit about Trek’s tapered steerer tube patent, friends kindly reminded me about the past decade. It seems that somehow I’d misplaced any recollection of the bike industry from the Y2K crisis to year 2010, including Trek’s tapered head tube and fork development. Josh, in particular helped me face apparently repressed memories about Trek’s E1 and E2 head tube standards, and how they have, in fact, maintained that as an open standard.

Somewhere inside that moment where the gears began to engage and my brain’s sad, cheese-clogged synapes started to fire again, this occurred to me: they really have let others use this.

In light the way Specialized recently attacked Volagi, ostensibly for making a carbon fiber bicycle frame that may or may not be painted red (the Volagi frame shape certainly bore no resemblance to anything Specialized had ever made), not to mention the many, many absolute bullshit patents protecting highly dubious claims, Trek’s benevolent stance here seems genuinely nice. Sure, it was a tactical decision to help ensure the design was adopted by fork manufacturers and stuff, and plenty of companies immediately rush to use any perceived intellectual property advantage to cut off development, only to find they’ve painted themselves into a corner. But, still. Trek could have probably been dicks about this, and they weren’t. I think that’s nice of them.

Probably just me, though. A complicated and prolonged search for new employment has me all emotional. I’m currently leaning toward “hearse driver,” provided I can learn to ride on the wrong side of the road and eat .

Yes, self-declared physically unfit British owner of a tandem bike hearse, Reverend Paul Sinclair, recently famous and somewhat , is looking for someone to pedal the recently deceased to their final resting places.

As a naturally morbid personality and recovering Roman Catholic who feels guilty about riding a bike unless it’s also, technically, considered “work,” this would be my dream job, were it not for two things.

First, I find the Queen such a distractingly handsome woman that I have no idea how anyone in the UK manages to concentrate on anything. Just knowing she was near–with that weirdly conspiratorial and overbitey grin of hers–would render me incapable of even making toast correctly.

Second, the hatred for cyclists in the UK is so much more refined than it is in the states, that I’m not sure how one survives there without maybe a bandoleer of Grey Poupon to hurl at passing “lorries.” Case in point, one Andrew Grimes, a writer for The Manchester Evening News, who believes:

It is seldom a good idea to get on yer bike. Hail a taxi. Catch a bus. Drive a car. Walk. Each of these alternatives offers the likeliest chance of completing a journey through a British city without winding up at the undertakers.

Cycling is a relic of cosy, Edwardian rurality, when one could take one’s chances in contest with a lumbering horse and cart. Nobody got his or her skull crushed under the hooves of a farmer’s shire.

But that was then.

Today is the 21st century, burnt tyre rubber time, with a bloke in a tall cabin unable to see the assiduous helmet crouched nose-down on aluminium handlebars, sidling alongside his fuel-stashed juggernaut.

Yet the cycling lobby won’t give up. It never ceases to campaign for more road space – which means clearing goods lorries, buses and motor cars off great swathing widths of our arterial highways—to make way for its insane multitudes of pedalling romantics.”

While I take issue with the Dickensianly be-monikered “Mr. Grimes” regarding the general use of bicycles and his belief that cyclists should stop trying to be so bloody special and just drive a car like any sensible person, I can not fault his prose, which can only be described as the aural equivalent of inserting Jonathan Swift into the arse of William Shakespeare and baking for twelve to fourteen hours at 400-degrees. Fahrenheit, of course.

Even if one dared mount a response to the twisted logic that claims to advocate for the health of cyclists by making them no longer cyclists, phrases like “fuel-stashed juggernaut” overwhelm the reader’s senses with such a flamboyant display of bad poetry as to be almost disorienting. Is fuel actually “hidden” within vehicles, and is the presence of the fuel somehow relevant to the author’s point? Having neither driven nor ridden in London proper, I concede my ignorance in the matter. Perhaps even the slightest brush with a cyclist frequently causes cars in the UK to explode spectacularly. Having located the steering wheel on the wrong side of the vehicle, it’s certainly possible the petrol tanks are somehow located in the side view mirrors.

At any rate, it appears the UK has a a unique strain of an otherwise American disorder, a condition that causes the infected to reduce those with different viewpoints to idealistic children, while they, the clear-minded adults, endeavor to explain How Life Works. One grows up, of course, and learns not to ride bicycles, because riding bicycles is generally very good (it doesn’t pollute and it makes for a healthier population) and because riding a bicycle makes people happy.

And that just won’t do.

Like any truly gifted writer, Mr. Grimes has an innate grasp of the ironic, burying his criticism of less “up-to-date” modes of transportation being pedaled around by “romantics” inside his own peculiarly ancient prose.

It is not safe to ride a bike through high-cabined convoys of juggernauts. To pretend that it is, is to ignore the emergence of all mechanised locomotion since 1912 . . . . I think that all cycling on major arterial roads, especially at peak periods, should be outlawed on pain of jail, apart from in places without traffic lights and where the motorised speed limit has been brought down to 12 miles an hour. At the same time, I am not completely heartless. Obviously, cycling on pavements should be encouraged.”

Yes, “on pain of jail,” cycling should be outlawed in order to save cyclists from themselves–and by “themselves” Grimes of course means their habit of trying to share the road with “juggernauts.” I would submit to the people of London that any man who uses the word “juggernaut” to describe a motor vehicle more than once within the same article, should be driven from the city proper, “on pain of jail,” as a man unfit to process life in the 21st Century. Yes, it’s clearly the cyclists of London who have fallen behind the times, dangerously unaware of the dangers posed by the great, steam-powered juggernauts all around them.

I encourage everyone to read the article, preferably with the following image in mind as narrator.

And yes, Mr. Grimes does indeed conclude with a concession. He is not, “completely heartless,” and suggests cyclists should make use of “pavements,” or, in the slightly less obtuse American vernacular, “sidewalks,” where, he assures us, “granny with her groceries is usually nippy enough to dodge a two- wheeled obstacle crawling past the shop window, even if she cannot always bring herself to knock him down.” I suspect Mr. Grimes himself ultimately lacks the ~~balls~~ballocks to actually affect cycling in London, or anywhere else, but, should anyone cycling on the streets of London encounter the gentleman making his way along a “pavement,” I suggest you heed his advice, get your ass on his nice, safe sidewalk, and make sure he’s feeling sufficiently “nippy.”

Friday’s Legal Landgrab

Bikes Comments Off

Feb 032012

Yesterday, I went through some of the more interesting patents out there. One that seemed to deserve its own space, though, is this one.

That’s still a little vague, so let me clarify what it pertains to.

Based on that set of drawings, you might begin to recognize the idea in question as a tapered steerer tube–the same basic design found on almost every bike. I stumbled onto this the other night, and traced it back to a patent that was already approved on May 22nd, 2011. Given that the inventor is in Madison, Wisconsin, I suspected the actual owner of the patent was Trek, and finding the old patent confirmed this. Here’s the “Abstract,” or “what it does” portion of the original patent:

A bicycle steerer tube assembly having an oblong asymmetric cross section formed along a portion of the steerer tube. The asymmetric portion of the steerer tube has a first diameter that is generally aligned with an axis of rotation of the front wheel and a second diameter that is generally aligned with a plane of rotation of the front wheel. The first diameter is greater than the second diameter and provides lateral stiffness to the wheel assembly and the second diameter accommodates longitudinal impact absorption of the fork and wheel assembly.”

The potential significance of this is pretty mind-blowing. If I’m reading this correctly–and I’m pretty sure I’m at least close–what this patent actually says is that Trek was granted ownership of tapered steerer tubes this past May.

As in all tapered steerer tubes.

Meaning that pretty much every bike above $1000 and made in the last few years features intellectual property now owned by Trek.

If this is, indeed, the case, the real question becomes, “Will they enforce this patent?” and, if so, to what degree? Conceivably, every bike with a tapered steerer tube owes Trek money. Given that the original patent was approved less than a year ago, it’s possible the hammer just hasn’t come down yet–and it’s also possible that, despite the initial approval of a clearly very broad idea, clarification was required before anything could really be enforced, and this has required the submission for a second patent. My fourth least-favorite thing in the world (behind Nickleback, vampires who fall in love humans, and chewing aluminum foil) is half-cocked internet rumor-mongering, so it’s important to point out that this could be no big deal–companies hold all kinds of patents, and not every intellectual battle is as bloody as, say, Apple versus Samsung. Maybe this all means nothing.

But wow. It’s hard to believe a patent this broad could be granted, and that Trek could conceivably declare all tapered steerer designs liable for encroaching on their intellectual turf, but I believe the possibility is at least there, based on this information.

Personally, I’d like to think that Trek is above taking any action on this patent, assuming they can, but it’s a mad world. Many, many crazy patent wars have already been waged–many behind the curtain–in the bicycle industry. I can still remember walking past a Santa Cruz Superlight in one of my mechanics’ bike stands and noticing a patent number stamped on the swingarm. Suffice to say, it didn’t belong to Santa Cruz–the company who’d originated that type of swingarm design. Seems somebody had come in underneath them and snaked the IP on that fabrication method, which to this day seems like one of the biggest dick moves possible. But there have been plenty, and Specialized’s recent drunken swing at Volagi proves we’re not all one big happy industry, sitting around the campfire, drinking microbrews and sharing mutual respect.

What do you think? If one company had the ability to claim something that’s become such a part of all decent bicycles, should they? If Trek developed this technology out ahead of everyone else, then they’re right to own it, but boy would it be something for them to take ownership of that now. I suspect we’d be looking at a blizzard of licensing deals being put together, like what happens in smartphones and other competitive technology sectors, and most of us would go on buying whatever bike we wanted, oblivious to the money changing hands behind the scenes.

Or this could be a real mess.

Patently Oblivious: Weird Bike Stuff is Out There

Bikes, Gadgets Comments Off

Feb 022012

Few things are better on a rainy morning than settling in with a full pot of coffee and some time to cruise freaky patents. Sure, I’m supposed to pretend facing a rainy morning while racing a 24-hour event–or better still, wrenching one–is the more honorable, Klingon sort of path to joy, but, having done that, I call bullshit. Nice to be warm today, and I like looking at the future. The strange, strange future. While, for me, nothing will compare to the old days of Interbike, when small companies could still afford to booth up on the ground floor and show off their bizarre wares, sorting through upcoming patents is as close as it gets. Will these things see the light of day? Tough to say, but here are a few reasons to hope the Mayans are wrong.

About all I can say to this is: “wow.” If you think you’ve seen everything possible in the world of bicycle suspension, you need to say hello to a kind of four-bar with bars that criss-cross in an “x” pattern, which seems to be what’s going on here.

Pretty straightforward here. So staightforward, in fact, that I can’t really believe this was approved. If blending seat stays into your top tube’s a crime the Handmade Show is going to look like Occupy Oakland.

Like everyone else, I’ve been kicking Specialized in the nuts for a while now over their recent marketing self-immolation stunt against Volagi, so it’s nice to point out some positive–if somewhat bizarre–things they have up their big red sleeves.

Tough to say where they’re going with a sort of bloated seat tube as suspension system, but I love the initiative. Goofy envelope-pushing stuff like this is the good side of Specialized.

While this smacks of notorious “lawyer tabs” on forks, I have to admit it’s a simple way to keep your handlebars from completely flying out of your stem.

Um, but . . . so this solves a problem? Is there a reason we all need to be concerned about this, guys? At first glance, the safety clip on this stem design seems like it’d only come into play if your stem’s faceplate exploded off or something. Might have to up my life insurance and/or read this one over carefully.

Nice and practical, SRAM’s design for a front derailleur with a really compact, multi-cable-pull-friendly actuation arm. I figured I’d include this because it’s nice to see front derailleurs–if one must still use them–being shrunken as much as possible. This makes frame designers very happy.

Have a question about the what’s left of the future? Go look at some patent, or feel free to ask me. I love this stuff.

Friday’s Crotch of Luxury and Self-Esteem Check

Bikes, E-commerce, Swine Comments Off

Jan 272012

While enjoying my morning ritual of fourteen cups of coffee and browsing, I was relieved to see yet another place to custom build your own luxury, multi-colored, ~~bike~~fashion accessory. Apparently Villy Customs will let you create just about any color $150 bicycle you’d like for between $400 and $800, thus fulfilling their corporate mission statement: “Luxury. Fashion. Bicycle.” (In that order.)

Because I think a lot about marketing, when I see yet another company with a fancy color-picker feature, I don’t concern myself with the overall shoddy quality of the product or what I suspect to be a woeful lack of customer service (I leave those concerns to the buyers), but, rather, the funny way these companies distinguish themselves from the actual bicycle industry, which apparently sells an entirely different product. See, a “bicycle” is a mechanical device, which needs proper assembly and periodic maintenance, whereas a personalized “Cruiser” or a “Fixie” is actually classified as a fashion accessory, and, as such, apparently needs none of those things. Smartly, the companies offering these fashionable accessories understand that they are “luxury” items in a way that properly designed and functionally assembled bicycles can never be. Cruisers and Fixies that allow potential owners to choose from a rainbow of nondescript components of dubious quality are, in fact, the very definition of luxury. Think of them as small, street-going yachts with chains chattering against improperly installed but festooned-with-painted-daisies chain guards, veritable Bugatti Veyrons of style, oozing down the street with all the passion and aggression a rapidly detensioning and wobbly rear wheel can command.

As such, their companies inevitably have their own marketing pages bolted (threads stripped) right onto their sites. In the case of Villy, this page is smartly filled with the various local morning TV shows that found their products adorable. Who needs function, when Entrepreneur magazine, Modern Luxury Dallas, and Good Morning Texas have featured your business.

Speaking of personalized service, one of my older posts regarding Specialized and the recent nonsense with Volagi received the following comment yesterday:

This is a poor representation of the Specialized brand. I feel Specialized strives to protect it’s intellectual property and it’s IBD network. No other brand is as IBD exclusive as Specialized. They could double there numbers if they sold to everyone and anyone. But they don’t they only want true knowledgeable bike shops representing there brand. Agreed the lawsuit with Volagi is a bit frivolous however if you let one company copy your ideas than soon all will.”

I thanked this person for the comment, and I can appreciate a need to stand up for the many positive things Specialized has done, the clearly great bikes they make, and the support they do offer dealers.

But I had to take issue with both points made in that comment, which are not only inaccurate, but also reinforce dangerous misconceptions about this particular case, and about the relationship Specialized and other vendors have with independent bike dealers. So I replied. And replied. And replied some more. Because, for some reason, I take both of these issues very seriously, and I reject the warm and fuzzy notion that Specialized–or anybody else–bases their relationship with dealers solely on some kind of vague personal respect. It’s an adorable and whimsical idea, but I think the reality has a lot more to do with things like territory, supply chain strategy, and mutual need.

For starters, the intellectual property argument might have some validity if Specialized had actually had any intellectual property stolen, but they didn’t. Just because the battle is over, doesn’t mean you get to rewrite the outcome, or give validity to an argument the legal proceeding dismantled. This whole sad event wasn’t just a bad marketing decision for Specialized; it was a genuine legal proceeding, and its results confirmed they had no intellectual property stolen. The lawsuit wasn’t “a bit frivolous”; it was baseless, and the more we learned about it, the more it seemed like classic intimidation of competition, something I find distasteful. Volagi did not steal anything from Specialized. Your assertion that once you allow one company to steal your intellectual property, others will follow, makes it sound like theft occurred here. What we’ve determined is that it did not.

I’d like to put to rest the bullshit notion that a company like Specialized could “double there [sic] numbers if they sold to everyone and anyone.” I’ve heard this ridiculous assertion put forward in the bike industry time and time again, and it’s the argument of beaten down IBDs with serious daddy complexes: “Daddy only sells through us ’cause Daddy loves us and takes care of us!”

Bullshit.

I applaud Specialized’s business model and their execution–they’ve done an amazing job of working within an established system for selling bicycles. But it’s an established system, not something they’ve done out of compassion, and there are reasons they don’t sell directly to consumers. The point I’ve been trying to make is that if independent bike shops don’t start spending less time drinking Kool-aid and more time learning to read tea leaves, they could find themselves caught unprepared for the inevitable. Specialized has already begun selling “selective” products directly to consumers on-line. Independent bike shops should be hedging against even the slightest possibility of that trend continuing, and blind faith in the benevolence of vendors is not a viable business plan.

I honestly do believe dealer loyalty plays a role in Specialized’s decision to restrict sales of bicycles to brick-and-mortar transactions, but it’s a smaller role than you think. There are more valid business forces keeping them from selling direct. Why doesn’t General Motors sell directly to consumers? For certain products, the benefits of consumer direct sales do not outweigh the expenses. The notion that Specialized, or GM, or any company built on a dealer representative platform could flip a switch overnight and begin selling direct to consumers–if only they chose to–is just not accurate. Believing that glorifies the manufacturer while disparaging the role of independent dealers. If you own or work at a bike shop, think of the work you do to sell and maintain bikes. It’s tremendous. So you’re telling me Specialized, or any other company, could just absorb that workload? Even if IBDs continued to offer some support, the actual expenses associated with turning a B2B company into a consumer-facing enterprise are staggering. There are legitimate barriers there.

But what I find truly bizarre about all of this is the screwy logic that lets presumably good bike shops demean themselves–instinctively, and by default. I have a lot of respect for Specialized and their products. I can understand how any shop would be happy and proud to be able to offer their products. Almost nothing should come before a dealer’s relationship with his vendors–but belief in your own business should. By definition, if you’re a quality shop, doing quality work, you should not believe your vendors sell to you only because they’re being kind. Instead of counting on their continued kindness–even as the market shifts all around them–shouldn’t you be making yourself indispensable? Look at a retail brand like Competitive Cyclist and tell me that putting your brand first doesn’t work. Claiming to add value without being able to articulate that value to consumers is becoming obsolete. What’s great about any shop has to be far more than just what brands they carry, but too many shops still place their own self worth in the brands they sell. So Specialized could “double” sales if they let their bikes be sold everywhere, but “they only want true knowledgeable bike shops representing there [sic] brand.” Look at the word “want” in there. Why have you not replaced that with “need”? That’s what you need to ask yourself.

The Little Things

Bikes, E-commerce, Swine Comments Off

Jan 262012

Sometimes I think that, if I could have three wishes, the first would be for someone to finally drive a stake through the heart of the fashion industry’s fleeting love of bikes, and the second and third would both be for the first to come true, just in case. The image of the $5,000 Bianchi hipster-mobile above comes to us courtesy of a site called “The Pursuitist,” who’s mission is apparently to, “Find and share the good things in life.” Inevitably this seems to consist almost entirely of increasingly elaborate devices designed to take what little soul you might’ve been born with and painfully extract it from your person. According to the article:

Biking is a luxury, and now it has a price tag to go along with it too. Gucci has launched two exclusive Bianchi by Gucci bicycles designed by the brand’s Creative Director, Frida Giannini.

Giannini told us, “The Bianchi by Gucci bicycles perfectly carry forward our codes of luxury while creating a new cosmopolitan aesthetic for those looking to turn heads while on the go”.

However, the Bianchi by Gucci bikes are only available for purchase in London from Gucci’s store at 18 Sloane Street. The white, hydro-formed steel single speed bike (above) costs $5,000 while the black carbon fiber monocoque model (below) is priced at $14,000.”

Yes, as anyone in China can tell you, biking is, indeed, a luxury. I just quoted that in its entirety because I honestly couldn’t bring myself to read through it one more time to pick out only the quotable parts. And no, I don’t have the spiritual fortitude to show you the carbon fiber one, if you haven’t already seen it. I can’t claim to understand what strange force has trapped certain Italian bike companies in the ’80s, but could someone please tell Colnago and Bianchi that most of the pastel-suitjacket-wearing coke addicts who used to represent a market for high-fashion, co-branded bicycle abominations are now either dead or riding Specialized Venges? And everyone knows kids ride Cinellis. Yes, the 21st Century is proving confusing to some companies. Today, managing to have a bike featured on a site next to artisanal mable syrum and $800 amplification horns for iPhones is arguably the most ironic sign of “status” possible.

Still, you have to love how ruthlessly practical bicycles manage to remain, despite the pressure to turn them into luxury items and fashion accessories, probably because you almost always have to actually ride a bike in order to show it off to everyone, and that’s a pretty high barrier of entry for the frail and soul-less.

Besides, everybody knows it’s the #littlethings that really matter. Word in business news today is that McDonald’s is attempting to rebound from their ill-fated #McDStories Twitter social media bloodbath with a fresh hashtag, “#littlethings,” which, hopefully, will be a few more degrees separated from worms in fish sandwiches and “dying inside.” Clearly, some–I’ll go ahead and assume frantic–discussion occurred at Clown Food Central over the past 48-hours, and it was determined that anything even vaguely close to the discussion of actual food products was the real liability in this campaign, and that a new hashtag was needed that was much more difficult to relate back even to their company, let alone the “food.” Hence, “#littlethings.” Brilliant.

Here I’d like to official introduce a new term into the lexicon of social media marketing: to “rainblow.” It means to shield your otherwise disgusting brand, service, or product behind some form of generally recognized piece of undeniable goodness. I believe this is actually one the marketing industry stole from Congress, the original masters of rainblowing our minds by authoring bills with names like the “Children’s Health Act” that actually allows companies to dispose of green, glowing toxic waste by pouring it directly into the mouths of anyone with a household income less than $250,000 a year.

The beauty of the new McDonald’s hashtag is how it boldly says, “Think of the special shit that really matters to you. OK, got it? Now give it to us.” That’s some bold social marketing, right there. It says, “We don’t stand for the shit we expect you to eat. We stand for whatever you think is good . . . whatever matters to you dumbass morons, just think ‘McDonald’s!’ when you picture that.”

Speaking of social networking and the Internets, I haven’t forgotten the official wrap up of my e-commerce how-to segment. All put together, the actual ad is going to look like this:

Frame Material: Steel
Head Tube Type: Standard 1-1/8″
Fork Steerer Tube Diameter: 1-1/8″
Seatpost Diameter: 27.2mm
Rear Dropout Spacing: 135mm
Rear Dropout Type: Standard Geared
Maximum Tire Size: 26×2.3-inches
Wheel Size: 26-inches
Front Dropout Spacing: 100mm
Water Bottle Bosses: 1 set, top of downtube
Color: Green
Size: 18-inch (both captain and stoker)

Here’s your chance to pretend to own a truly exclusive bike. This is the only tandem bicycle hearse in the UK. The Reverend Paul Sinclair of Motorcycle Funerals had this unique bike fabricated for addition to his unique line up of funereal vehicles. Unfortunately, Reverend Sinclair does not feel he’s sufficiently fit to operate the hearse, so he’s making it available in the hope that it will one day find a good home. Own a genuine piece of British history that just also happens to be able to transport dead bodies. Should also be able to transport at least two kegs, 4-8 surfboards, children, furniture, and another bike.

Learn more about the bike on the Daily Mail’s site.

$3,522.37

Next, I’ll be walking everyone through the exact little bit of code necessary to create that product listing, and then we’ll be able to start testing that buy button. Before then, I either need to make a tandem hearse to sell, or find something else I need to get rid of. Preferably something smaller than a tandem hearse or a Big Dummy, and easier to fit into a box and ship. #littlethings

Occupy the Internet, Small Business Style

Bikes, E-commerce Comments Off

Jan 172012

Ah, the Internet, that terrifying behemoth hell-bent on destroying small business in America. Or not. You know how politicians start to talk about the evils of class warfare only after a large enough percentage of Americans are poor enough to face a little pepper spray? How class warfare isn’t ever brought up in relation to, say, an orchestrated effort to carpet bomb the middle class? Well, there’s a similar bit of tomfoolery afoot when it comes to the Internet. Only when the Best Buys and Targets of the world start to get hurt by the likes of Amazon do The Powers That Be start to swivel their fat, old white heads in that general direction to figure out which party has the most money and can be declared a winner. But what about the mom and pop stores? As I pointed out in the past, Amazon has been strangling small retailers out of existence for some time now–or that’s not entirely accurate: they’ve been leading them to their candy cottage in the woods with a trail of gumdrops, boiling them down to bones and sucking out the marrow.

But that doesn’t have to happen to all small retailers.

As I’ve argued, the absolute worst mistake a small business can make is to believe “Amazon” and “the Internet” the same thing. The Internet and its possibilities far exceed Amazon. It belongs to all small businesses, and if you’re not using it, you should be.

My friend Kyle posted a link to an interesting article in the New York Times that supports the notion that “little guys” still have a place on the Internet. The gist is that some consumers will pay more to support local stores–regardless of where those “local” stores are located. In other words, a guy in Kansas might by drumsticks from Drumworld near Pittsburgh, instead of, Musican’s Friend, an enormous web retailer, or Amazon. The article raises some good points, but also fails to flesh out the actual consumer making these decisions as anything much more than altruistic. In fact, there are plenty of self-serving reasons why consumers choose to shop with smaller e-commerce companies, and chief among them is product knowledge and attention to detail. Amazon can process millions of orders a day and offer low prices, but are they truly a resource for a lot of what they sell? Can you call someone at Amazon and talk drum sticks, or espresso makers? What about rear mountain bike tires, saddles?

Sure you can have reviews on mega-sites, but there’s a place on the Internet for qualified opinions, and actual quality product information, too. That place is the small retailer’s site.

Before the whole Specialized vs. Volagi madness took center stage, I was looking at some practical and specific ways for any small business to easily test the e-commerce waters. We looked at the importance of becoming a knowledge base for people, an authentic and trusted source of quality information, and from there we moved into getting specific and setting up a basic WordPress site. Today I’m offering some organizational tips and organizational resources to help you get ready to merchandise your product on-line.

Know Your Product Categories and Attributes

Even if you’ll only be posting one item at a time, trust me, you need to know that product’s category and its attributes. Category is a relatively simple term, but give it sufficient thought. You might not have a fancy database to work with right now, but, trust me, life will be much easier for you later on if you start thinking in these terms now. So I have this Surly Big Dummy frame and fork (aka “frameset”) I’m thinking of posting up here for sale. How would I categorize it? Start super-broad and then zoom in. Here’s on example.

Sports and Outdoors > Cycling > Frames and Framesets > Framesets (include the fork) > Commuting/Cargo

Try to define your category first, then check your work against the overlord of all things taxonomy and classification, Google:

Now change your category structure to make it like Google. Why am I acting like such a badass when it comes to Amazon, but shrinking from going against the Google grain? Because Google’s in the business of getting your products found by people who need them. Think your product is unique enough that you need your own taxonomy and should ignore Google’s? Make sure you haven’t been drinking, and then model it as closely as possible, because chances are you’re wrong, but always keep in mind that you can be more specific than Google. Once they stop at “bicycle frames,” for instance, I might keep sub-dividing into “frame” and “frame and fork” categories. Whatever you do, never be more vague than they are. Why not just check the Google link I’ve provided first? Because you want to train yourself to think in terms of categories. It’s like crunches for the rippling six pack e-commerce abs you’ll eventually have. One day you might be sitting in a room listening to a pitch from a search engine ranking specialist, and suddenly realize–thanks to your well developed understanding of this stuff-that he’s full of shit. You’d be surprised how big an advantage instinctive organization can be when it comes to getting your information found, and making site visitors happy.

“Attributes” is by now a technical term in the world of content management systems for serious e-commerce companies, but everyone should use them. Simply put, they’re aspects of a product that lets people compare it to other similar products. “Color” and “size” are examples of very common attributes, but when thinking about what you want to sell, you want to be much better organized than just listing these really common attributes (sometimes referred to as “options” because they’re the attributes that most often show up in pull-down menus on product pages). Knowing a fill list of your product’s attributes means answering all questions a consumer might have–consumers tend to like that. For examples of bad or completely missing attributes, try to buy something complicated off Craig’s list. Here’s an example from the Big Dummy frameset I’m going to sell:

Frame Material
Head Tube Type
Fork Steerer Tube Diameter
Seatpost Diameter
Rear Dropout Spacing
Rear Dropout Type
Maximum Tire Size
Wheel Size
Front Dropout Spacing
Water Bottle Bosses
Color
Size

So that’s the list of questions you want to be able to answer for your site visitor. Think of the resulting set of attributes as “tags,” because all attributes are essentially information tags that help people find things. And by all means refer to Amazon and other retailers already selling the item in question, and check out their attributes, too. There’s always a chance they thought of more attributes than you have, and your goal should be to answer all of the customers’ questions as quickly and easily as possible.

From here we want to look at some free and simple resources that are out there to help you merchandise your product. That’s where we’ll be going next.

Really Direct Marketing

Bikes, Swine 2 Responses »

Jan 162012

Let’s talk about really direct marketing. Sure, I’ve been exercising an unhealthy obsession with guerrilla e-commerce lately, working to convince small shop owners to start using the almighty Internet for something more than just a Google map to your location and (God forbid) printable coupons. It’s possible–or rather, let’s go with “super necessary” for small businesses to dip a toe into online sales, but all that will have to wait.

Why? Because the bike industry is witnessing a masterful education in the fine art of public relations self-destruction and brand anti-marketing that we’d be fools to ignore. Over the weekend, Specialized got their ass handed to them by Volagi, and then things got interesting.

Turns out Specialized spent about $1.5-million on their soul-killing, heavy-handed intimidation tactic/wild goosechase–an absolutely disgusting amount of money to piss away under any circumstances, and even more so right now, when John Q. Public is hyper-sensitive to wasteful, inappropriate behavior of the part of big companies. Almost every word that’s been printed regarding this entire sad episode has done damage to Specialized, and the facts haven’t done them any favors, either. The revelation that this much money was wasted in the service of stifling innovation and intimidating competition won’t do much to reverse the public perception of Specialized as a giant, out-of-touch, monopolistic, evil-doing gaggle of douchebags. Not to worry, though, because, once again, somebody let Specialized founder Mike Sinyard communicate with the public.

This lawsuit was a matter of principle and about protecting our culture of trust and innovation. We respect the ruling of the court in our favor. We are very satisfied with the outcome and the damages set at $1.00. We really want to put all our passion and time into growing the sport of cycling.”

Clearly, Sinyard and Rupert Murdoch have the same “magic touch” when it comes to understanding their public.

Read that quote again, if you think you’re up to it. The first sentence sets a good tone, and then, well . . . it makes you wonder if anyone at Specialized realizes the mic is on. Really, guys? You’re really “very satisfied” to’ve spent a million and a half bucks getting a dollar in return? If you’re trying to tell us you’re glad this didn’t have a destructive effect on Volagi, you’re sure not sounding that way, which means you’re–miraculously–sounding both disingenuous and unconcerned that you just wasted so much cash on a half-assed attempt at evil. And, even if that’s the case–even if you are sort of pissed off and dazed still, you realize, right, that you’re not supposed to let everyone know that’s where you are with this? It begs the question, do these guys have a PR department? Apparently, Specialized can spend $1.5-million on trying to stifle competition, but there’s nobody even making $10 an hour to give the main man’s missives a once-over to ensure they’re not repulsively demeaning and logically adrift.

Turns out I have some free time right now, and sounds like The Big S could use some pro bono help, so here’s my free rewrite of how anyone with even a small amount of respect for his customers would have written that letter:

“This lawsuit was a matter of principle and about protecting our culture of trust and innovation. At Specialized, we really do believe in our products more than anything, and that passion sometimes leads us to protect them at all costs. We’re making bikes because we believe in the positive things that a bicycle can do, and that’s a love we share with Volagi and every other brand. While we feel strongly enough about our reputation and our innovative products to take the steps we took in this matter, we sincerely respect and admire the desire Robert and Barley have shown to distinguish their product, and we hope they, and all those with a desire to make cycling better, continue to share our passion for making great bikes.”

Or some such shit. (I’m available for freelance work, by the way, for press releases, writing wedding invitations, really bitchin’ grocery lists, etc..)

There is a way to communicate to the public while still side-stepping legal landmines, but it involves seeming human and actually relating to your customers, instead of poking rifle barrels out of your ivory tower and doubling down on the draconian bullshit.

But, anyway, this is good for us–good for anyone studying how not to communicate with the public. Pop quiz: guess which company, Specialized or Volagi, better understands how to use social media? Here’s a hint: contrast Sinyard’s statement way above, with this tweet from Volagi:

Best dollar we ever spent.”

The thing some companies still don’t seem to get about social media is that they’re participating in it whether they want to be or not. You’re always marketing directly to your consumers. When you’re announcing a hot new product, or when you’re suing somebody. There’s a level of transparency to today’s businesses that some CEOs just don’t seem to understand.

Some, on the other hand, seem to understand it all too well. Maybe Sinyard should take a cue from “International Grand Confrerie Sommelier,” wine consultant to Costco, and maestro of social media, “Krunch,” who prefers to engage his social critics more directly. Disgruntled by a woman’s bad review of his business on Yelp, “Krunch” apparently took it upon himself to create a fake blog in the woman’s name and use it to describe her as a drug addict and prostitute, emailing her a link to the blog and writing, “Now every time a company for a job or someone searches YOU on google they will read my side of the story.”

Well played, sir. You are, indeed, ready to “serve world leaders, heads of state and Fortune 100 members.” Now, to complete their public relations self-destruction masterpiece, all Specialized has to do is personally attack everyone who thought their lawsuit was a horrible idea. Given how they’ve handled things to this point, nothing would surprise me.

It’s not like they’d have to work very hard to intimidate some members of the cycling press, who fall all over themselves to self-~~redact~~edit anything meaningful anyway. In the dying embers of this train wreck, we find this article on Velonews, which features a slightly more intriguing editorial preamble than most:

At the author’s request, the editorial notes at the bottom of this story were rewritten. They did not reflect the opinions of VeloNews.com.”

Is it just me, or does the editorial quote above read a hell of a lot like, “After having a gun barrel pressed to his forehead (no easy task to do to a man who’s, like, 8-feet tall), Mr. Zinn would like to reconsider those things he initially said and meant but might’ve seriously pissed off one of the largest advertisers in our industry.” Say, does anyone have a screen grab of how Lennard Zinn’s original article read? I’d really like to see that, Velonews. Anyone?

The Social Graft

Bikes, E-commerce Comments Off

Jan 122012

Andy Warhol prophetically said, “Everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes,” which tends to increasingly sum up what passes for life here in the 21st Century, but he also said,

An artist is somebody who produces things that people don’t need to have.”

Maybe a little more prophetic. Imagine how many artists there are on the Internet right now, how many pieces of art we step over in the street or delete from our inboxes. Imagine the scale of some of these works. From credit default swaps to the Kardashians, “Hoarders” to Silicon Valley, we’re crawling with art–though I’m pretty sure today we call it “content.” As ~~the walls close in~~ we become increasingly connected to everything around us, social networks seem like the new Model-T assembly lines of a different kind of industrial revolution. Now we’re all content providers. Now we’re all artists.

Might as well sell that shit.

I’ve been writing about e-commerce and what I see as the increasingly low barrier of entry for businesses not yet selling products on the Internet. For any small business that still feels the task is too daunting, I’d recommend redefining your idea of “e-commerce.” Given all the white noise around us each day, forget “launching an e-commerce storefront” and begin by asking yourself what about your brand has value to people.

You can offer products to people later, but if you’re not already busy selling your own brand to the world, it’s time to start. The popularity of business books claiming to offer the secrets of “delivering great customer service experiences” suggests how you run your business, not what you sell, is what really matters. Products can be added later, but you can be marketing your store to everyone right now.

I think this is what burned me about that letter Specialized’s founder, Mike Sinyard sent to his dealers recently. For all the lip service brands like Specialized pay their dealers about the value of customer service and achieving a great customer experience, it’s completely counter their business strategy for you, Mr. Independent Retailer, to market your own brand above all else.

Some things to think about:

Do you consider a bike company’s “concept store” to be competition? How about a concept store six states away from you?
What defines you aside from the brands you sell? “Service” is a bullshit answer. What about your service is better than every other shop anywhere?
Draw a circle around your market on the map. Now draw a circle around your demographic.
What are the three best things about your store’s web site? Do you own them?

You are a brand. Joe’s Bike Shop is a brand. It has relationships with customers and with vendors, but if we steal the “social graph” concept from Facebook for a second, let’s look at how you’re connected to your life-blood: your customers. Do they shop with you only because of your location? Only because of the brands you offer? Or does something else drive your sales? Put another way, is it you that connects with your customers, or do you connect only by proxy, though something else, something you don’t control?

“Social graft” is a term I like to use to describe the ways big companies are increasingly making direct contact with their end users, bypassing their own traditional dealer networks. Specialized can sell tires directly to your customers now, while you’re still stuck waiting for somebody to walk in your door. That’s bullshit.

If I sound a little militant about this, I am. This is a critical time in a battle too few retailers seem to notice. See, I believe small businesses are the best thing about Capitalism, but, just as the Middle Class is being strangled out of existence in America, so too are independent businesses, stores that really do have something to offer the world, independent of the products they offer. The struggling independent bike dealer is the quintessential example of this.

The irony here is that it’s never been easier to sidestep the limitations of your physical location, and the Powers That Be, those brands that try to control your business. Forget all the marketing bullshit you’ve heard about social media and why it matters to your company. The real reason it matters is simply because direct connections matter. Social media isn’t just about your lead mechanic giving the world constant Twitter updates about his favorite breakfast cereals, or about sending out e-mails to announce sales. Sure, it can be about both of those things–if they offer value to people–but really it’s about understanding the new opportunity you have to speak directly to potential customers anywhere in the world. It’s time to define the value of your own brand and get it out there for people. There are plenty of other companies that want to get between you and your customers, but you have a nearly endless number of tools to keep that from happening.

Older Entries Newer Entries