37th Vuelta a San Juan Internacional (2.1)

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Jancouver said:
IndianCyclist said:
First Keisse make a obscene sexist action (Stupidity no 1) in public(Stupidity no 2) that is nicely captured in a photo (Stupidity no 3). So the victim is entitled to complain to police/media which she does. The media gets the news since it is the biggest cycling race in Argentina and spreads it all over the world because it is their job to do so(Escalation 1). Keisse apologizes (DeEscalation 1). DQS do nothing(Escalation 2). The organizers feel that they are associated with bad publicity and takes the attention away from actual race and expel Keisse (Escalation 3). Lefevere makes not starting comment (Escalation 4 Stupidity no 4). Lefevere makes money comment (Escalation 5 Stupidity no 5). DQS donot attend the podium ceremony (Escalation 6 Stupidity no 6)
Good Way to keep the issue burning and sponsors unhappy.
Sponsors unhappy?

You probably don't know much about publicity and marketing.

"Negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown simply because it stimulates product awareness."

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-bad-publicity-good

So this is a win-win for the sponsors. Nothing too tragical happened and everyone is talking about it.

If that was my company or I was running marketing for them, I would say "Sign me up!"

Geez, this is FREE marketing and publicity worth of millions of dollars!

Ka-Ching!

BTW, go to Twitter and run reports how much publicity the sponsors got last year in January and how much they got (for free) this year.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/keisse-saga-sparks-tensions-between-quickstep-team-and-new-sponsor-deceuninck/
 
Re:

yaco said:
A silly action by Keisse, though the surrounding circus is out of proportion to the action - All it does is create unnecessary action on the sport.
I agree with you. However, I believe that Patrick Lefevere should have handled it better than this. Nowadays with social media and everything else that is going on, the PR is becoming very important part of the sponsors. This is something that they don't like for their image. Even less the reaction by Patrick Lefevere.
 
Re: Re:

Jancouver said:
IndianCyclist said:
First Keisse make a obscene sexist action (Stupidity no 1) in public(Stupidity no 2) that is nicely captured in a photo (Stupidity no 3). So the victim is entitled to complain to police/media which she does. The media gets the news since it is the biggest cycling race in Argentina and spreads it all over the world because it is their job to do so(Escalation 1). Keisse apologizes (DeEscalation 1). DQS do nothing(Escalation 2). The organizers feel that they are associated with bad publicity and takes the attention away from actual race and expel Keisse (Escalation 3). Lefevere makes not starting comment (Escalation 4 Stupidity no 4). Lefevere makes money comment (Escalation 5 Stupidity no 5). DQS donot attend the podium ceremony (Escalation 6 Stupidity no 6)
Good Way to keep the issue burning and sponsors unhappy.
Sponsors unhappy?

You probably don't know much about publicity and marketing.

"Negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown simply because it stimulates product awareness."

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-bad-publicity-good

So this is a win-win for the sponsors. Nothing too tragical happened and everyone is talking about it.

If that was my company or I was running marketing for them, I would say "Sign me up!"

Geez, this is FREE marketing and publicity worth of millions of dollars!

Ka-Ching!

BTW, go to Twitter and run reports how much publicity the sponsors got last year in January and how much they got (for free) this year.
This is an incredibly naive point of view. Yes, the sponsors are unhappy. No sponsor wants to be involved in anything like this. They drop athletes all the time for negative publicity. Sponsors don't want their products or services to be connected to negative press, particularly anything like this - what good is more brand awareness when that awareness causes consumers to boycott their company?

Did you even read the entire article you linked to? "In a new study from Stanford Graduate School of Business, researchers say in some cases negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown, simply because it stimulates product awareness."

Some cases. This is not one of those type of cases. Especially not in 2019. No sponsor wants to be connected to anything like this. No surprise that Deceuninck is upset. They didn't sign up with the team to be connected to sexual harassment or assault (whether he touched her or not).

I agree with Escarabajo that the sponsors are probably more upset about Lefevere's decisions than they are with Keisse at this point.
 
Re: Re:

jaylew said:
Especially not in 2019. No sponsor wants to be connected to anything like this. No surprise that Deceuninck is upset.
well, at least it made me check what kind of company Deceunick is at all. But yeah, it's nothing like Hooters, by the look of it ;)
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
yaco said:
A silly action by Keisse, though the surrounding circus is out of proportion to the action - All it does is create unnecessary action on the sport.
I agree with you. However, I believe that Patrick Lefevere should have handled it better than this. Nowadays with social media and everything else that is going on, the PR is becoming very important part of the sponsors. This is something that they don't like for their image. Even less the reaction by Patrick Lefevere.
I doubt that QS will be riding San Juan in 2020.
 
Re: Re:

search said:
jaylew said:
Especially not in 2019. No sponsor wants to be connected to anything like this. No surprise that Deceuninck is upset.
well, at least it made me check what kind of company Deceunick is at all. But yeah, it's nothing like Hooters, by the look of it ;)
The CEO looks slick af. :lol:
]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he's got a few skeletons in his closet himself. Just a wild guess.

LOL @ the "I've got the upper hand" handshake, BTW.
 
Re: Re:

jaylew said:
This is an incredibly naive point of view. Yes, the sponsors are unhappy. No sponsor wants to be involved in anything like this. They drop athletes all the time for negative publicity. Sponsors don't want their products or services to be connected to negative press, particularly anything like this - what good is more brand awareness when that awareness causes consumers to boycott their company?
It really depends though. There is the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity". And it has some truth to it, but it depends. If you are a well known brand, this will hurt your sales short term. Say, Coca Cola, Mars, Nike... brands known all over the world, by everybody. Because people know the brand beforehand, they can easily link the brand to the offense.

For an unknown brand however, the opposite is true. Customers of such a brand, might not even know they own the brand, or know the brand by name, so the risk of actually losing customers, is small. Of the people that don't own the brand, the product awareness is even smaller. In the case of Deceuninck, they do frames for doors and windows... do you know the brand of your doors/windows? Not the company that places them, but the factory that produces them. I'm going to guess, no? So the risk of losing customers, is low in the short term. In the long term however, let's say 2 years later, nobody will remember that Deceuninck was the sponsor of the team of the idiot that made a sexist joke in Argentina... but, they will remember hearing the name before. Hence, they will conclude, since this is a name i recognize (even though they don't know why), it'll be an established product.
 
Re:

IndianCyclist said:
First Keisse make a obscene sexist action (Stupidity no 1) in public(Stupidity no 2) that is nicely captured in a photo (Stupidity no 3). So the victim is entitled to complain to police/media which she does. The media gets the news since it is the biggest cycling race in Argentina and spreads it all over the world because it is their job to do so(Escalation 1). Keisse apologizes (DeEscalation 1). DQS do nothing(Escalation 2). The organizers feel that they are associated with bad publicity and takes the attention away from actual race and expel Keisse (Escalation 3). Lefevere makes not starting comment (Escalation 4 Stupidity no 4). Lefevere makes money comment (Escalation 5 Stupidity no 5). DQS donot attend the podium ceremony (Escalation 6 Stupidity no 6)
Good Way to keep the issue burning and sponsors unhappy.

This is a great explanation of what has happened.

Yes QS most definitely needs a better PR department because this isn't the way you do damage control.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
jaylew said:
This is an incredibly naive point of view. Yes, the sponsors are unhappy. No sponsor wants to be involved in anything like this. They drop athletes all the time for negative publicity. Sponsors don't want their products or services to be connected to negative press, particularly anything like this - what good is more brand awareness when that awareness causes consumers to boycott their company?
It really depends though. There is the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity". And it has some truth to it, but it depends. If you are a well known brand, this will hurt your sales short term. Say, Coca Cola, Mars, Nike... brands known all over the world, by everybody. Because people know the brand beforehand, they can easily link the brand to the offense.

For an unknown brand however, the opposite is true. Customers of such a brand, might not even know they own the brand, or know the brand by name, so the risk of actually losing customers, is small. Of the people that don't own the brand, the product awareness is even smaller. In the case of Deceuninck, they do frames for doors and windows... do you know the brand of your doors/windows? Not the company that places them, but the factory that produces them. I'm going to guess, no? So the risk of losing customers, is low in the short term. In the long term however, let's say 2 years later, nobody will remember that Deceuninck was the sponsor of the team of the idiot that made a sexist joke in Argentina... but, they will remember hearing the name before. Hence, they will conclude, since this is a name i recognize (even though they don't know why), it'll be an established product.
Agreed that it really depends on the company and situation.

I don't know how this would effect Deceuninck, but I am quite sure that execs at Specialized, which sells a lot of bikes in the U.S. including to women, are worried about how a feminist social media campaign to boycott Specialized (if they don't handle this properly) would impact their sales. It's happens to bigger companies here. And after all, if someone is looking closely at alleged point of contact in the photo, there is one logo that clearly shows up--Specialized's swooshing "S."
 
Also, in a way noone would ever have imagined, the rest day couldn't come at a worse time for all involved! No racing for media to report on, just this disastrous (for all involved) "joke" to cover.
 
Re:

Sciatic said:
Also, in a way noone would ever have imagined, the rest day couldn't come at a worse time for all involved! No racing for media to report on, just this disastrous (for all involved) "joke" to cover.
Well Mallorca started today, so some of the media is covering that and Landa's injury.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
jaylew said:
This is an incredibly naive point of view. Yes, the sponsors are unhappy. No sponsor wants to be involved in anything like this. They drop athletes all the time for negative publicity. Sponsors don't want their products or services to be connected to negative press, particularly anything like this - what good is more brand awareness when that awareness causes consumers to boycott their company?
It really depends though. There is the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity". And it has some truth to it, but it depends. If you are a well known brand, this will hurt your sales short term. Say, Coca Cola, Mars, Nike... brands known all over the world, by everybody. Because people know the brand beforehand, they can easily link the brand to the offense.

For an unknown brand however, the opposite is true. Customers of such a brand, might not even know they own the brand, or know the brand by name, so the risk of actually losing customers, is small. Of the people that don't own the brand, the product awareness is even smaller. In the case of Deceuninck, they do frames for doors and windows... do you know the brand of your doors/windows? Not the company that places them, but the factory that produces them. I'm going to guess, no? So the risk of losing customers, is low in the short term. In the long term however, let's say 2 years later, nobody will remember that Deceuninck was the sponsor of the team of the idiot that made a sexist joke in Argentina... but, they will remember hearing the name before. Hence, they will conclude, since this is a name i recognize (even though they don't know why), it'll be an established product.
What's more likely is that people will hear the name and sex scandal, sexism, harassment or something similar will pop in their head even if they don't remember the incident. Visualization and/or association is often how we remember things, whether done consciously or unconsciously. You don't ever want your brand associated with anything like this and of course there is a solid visual in this case. I could be wrong but I don't think for one second that Deceuninck is happy about this. Looks like Specialized isn't either...
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
So, who would you guys say is among the favourites for tomorrow's stage?
One for Alaphilippe?
It's one long grind up to 2500 m over sea level (max 6.4%) so a proper workout. Quintana would seem the fav (Carapaz to go well too?), but a repeat of a "Gonzalo Najar" local might well happen. Seems too long for Ala.
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
So, who would you guys say is among the favourites for tomorrow's stage?
One for Alaphilippe?
The climb fits Remco to a T. But given his role to protect the leader’s jersey he’s not going to have a shot at winning unless it’s him and Alaphilippe at the end or Alaphilippe blows up (extremely unlikely).

Probably see a small group (4-5) sprint at the finish.
 
Re: Re:

jaylew said:
What's more likely is that people will hear the name and sex scandal, sexism, harassment or something similar will pop in their head even if they don't remember the incident. Visualization and/or association is often how we remember things, whether done consciously or unconsciously. You don't ever want your brand associated with anything like this and of course there is a solid visual in this case. I could be wrong but I don't think for one second that Deceuninck is happy about this. Looks like Specialized isn't either...
This is not likely at all, since you do not remember the names of all the (to you) unfamiliar brands who did bad *** in the past (unless it is extreme), and your mind doesn't magically make that link after 2 or 5 years. After so many years, you just know that the name sounds familiar. And this occurence with Keisse isn't really big enough for 95% of the people who heard this once in the news, in order to remember that long. This will not dominate international news for weeks to come. It happened, it passed. This is completely different for a company/product that you know very well, before hearing of of such a transgression. Your brain already has a "slot" for this brand, and will more easily remember it in this case.

As such, it is indeed like Sciatic said in an earlier post up above, that this is a lot worse for Specialized, than it is for Deceuninck. Ofcourse will neither issue a statement, that they are happy that a rider of a team they sponsored, was caught up in something like this. Their PR department may actually not be completely useless, unlike that of the Deceuninck-QuickStep team.

LesDiablesRouges said:
RedheadDane said:
So, who would you guys say is among the favourites for tomorrow's stage?
One for Alaphilippe?
The climb fits Remco to a T. But given his role to protect the leader’s jersey he’s not going to have a shot at winning unless it’s him and Alaphilippe at the end or Alaphilippe blows up (extremely unlikely).

Probably see a small group (4-5) sprint at the finish.
Only if Alaphilippe cracks early, is there a chance that Remco can take a swing at it. While, in theory, it fits Remco we stil would need to see how he stacks up vs a pro peloton uphill. I think he'll do well, but that doesn't mean -regardless of teamorders and Alaphiluppe- he could beat Quintana, to name one. I mean, it's not Mayrhoffer he's facing here, even if the field is second tier.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
This is not likely at all, since you do not remember the names of all the (to you) unfamiliar brands who did bad **** in the past (unless it is extreme), and your mind doesn't magically make that link after 2 or 5 years. After so many years, you just know that the name sounds familiar. And this occurence with Keisse isn't really big enough for 95% of the people who heard this once in the news, in order to remember that long. This will not dominate international news for weeks to come. It happened, it passed. This is completely different for a company/product that you know very well, before hearing of of such a transgression. Your brain already has a "slot" for this brand, and will more easily remember it in this case.

As such, it is indeed like Sciatic said in an earlier post up above, that this is a lot worse for Specialized, than it is for Deceuninck. Ofcourse will neither issue a statement, that they are happy that a rider of a team they sponsored, was caught up in something like this. Their PR department may actually not be completely useless, unlike that of the Deceuninck-QuickStep team.
I think you're wrong so we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Hmmm.... seems like the finish is at 2624m this year. Previously (2017 & 2018) they finished at 2565m. Not a big difference, but maybe no flat km at the end this time? (it was flat judging from the old profile of the climb - not sure if that was actually the case though)

Regardless, I don't think this is Alaphilippe territory - although his form is obviously more than passable. Wonder how long they'll let Evenepoel pace him today, as Alaphilippe's lead is not huge relative to the climbers who are still in contention.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY