Cycling Article

[FQCVCS]

Hey duders,

I'm writing an article on the topic of fan access to cycling, emphasis on televised access to the Tour de France , for my journalism final.

As a cycling fan, I've noticed that it's gotten harder in the last couple of years to catch the TDF (arguably cycling's most popular race) on tv. Definitely not as accessible as it was when Lance was racing.

This past year, the 100th anniversary of the Tour, was one of the worst years for televised access yet. I was so disheartened! Replays were either on too early or too late for anyone who holds down a day job. (I should mention that I live in Canada, so my programming is Canadian.)

I wanted to ask a couple of questions pertaining to my article and get your opinions on fan access to cycling.

Q: How do you feel about the limited televised access to cycling? Compared to other sports? What kind of access do you get where you live?

Q: Cycling has quite a unique online presence which feels more communal than other sports online. Thoughts? Agree/Disagree?

Q: Lots of cyclists are on Twitter, like other athletes, however unlike other athletes, cyclists don't generally have televised press conferences or get big enough to get on talk shows and basically become celebrities. How has twitter affected cycling exposure? Has it made the sport any more popular? Or is it simply a way for die-hards to get closer to their favourite athletes.

Q: Is the (comparatively) limited exposure of cycling a good thing? Bad thing? Nothing?

All thoughts and ideas are welcome. This article is not being published, it is simply my final assignment and I need sources.

Thank you!

 

[avanti]

Q: How do you feel about the limited televised access to cycling? Compared to other sports? What kind of access do you get where you live?

Cable TV (I have Comcast) has very limited coverage - what I see is on either NBCSports or hopefully beIN. Comcast owns Universal Sports but does not to view on their Comcast lineup.

I watch quite a bit of cycling on the internet. For example I watched the World track championships from Calli last month - complete coverage - fantastic (but sometimes not that good a picture). That was webcast by UCI. I also watched the World Cyclocross Champs on the UCI feed (I believe). Internet streaming would be a great answer to providing coverage.

Q: Cycling has quite a unique online presence which feels more communal than other sports online. Thoughts? Agree/Disagree?

As far as TV goes football and basketball are the all important sports. I think the media vies cycling as something to show when they can make a profit and not much else going on.

Q: Lots of cyclists are on Twitter, like other athletes, however unlike other athletes, cyclists don't generally have televised press conferences or get big enough to get on talk shows and basically become celebrities. How has twitter affected cycling exposure? Has it made the sport any more popular? Or is it simply a way for die-hards to get closer to their favourite athletes.

I don't use twitter.

Q: Is the (comparatively) limited exposure of cycling a good thing? Bad thing? Nothing?

I think the limited exposure is bad - but then if it was popular we would have TV commentators who were in the game for their own "facetime" and not be that knowledgeable about cycling. I also realize it is hard for the media to justify losing money or breaking even on a show.

Today Lance Armstrong would not be hated as much if he had poured some of his easrnings into a Cycling channel (something like the original Tennis and Versus/Outdoor channels)

But TV as we know it today will be totally different within ten years so maybe there is hope for more cycling on TV and the Internet.

 

[ustabe]

Hey duders,

Q: How do you feel about the limited televised access to cycling? Compared to other sports? What kind of access do you get where you live?

Q: Cycling has quite a unique online presence which feels more communal than other sports online. Thoughts? Agree/Disagree?

Q: Lots of cyclists are on Twitter, like other athletes, however unlike other athletes, cyclists don't generally have televised press conferences or get big enough to get on talk shows and basically become celebrities. How has twitter affected cycling exposure? Has it made the sport any more popular? Or is it simply a way for die-hards to get closer to their favourite athletes.

Q: Is the (comparatively) limited exposure of cycling a good thing? Bad thing? Nothing?

All thoughts and ideas are welcome. This article is not being published, it is simply my final assignment and I need sources.

Thank you!

Being an enthusiast, I'd like to see more TV coverage, especially of the spring classics and the world's, but given the limited appeal of cycle road racing I'm not complaining.

Regarding press conferences and Twitter, I'm out of the loop and I like it that way. Most riders don't have a lot to say, or their team directors don't want them to say too much. And after the recent doping scandals, I don't believe a lot of it anyway.

I just like to watch the racing. And the scenery.

 

[Pricey_sky]

I find the coverage of cycling to be pretty good here in England. All Grand Tours are live as well as many of the key one-day races and stage races. Obviously the success of British riders on recent seasons has meant the sport gets more and more coverage which is great. The government are also putting lots of money into making our roads safer and encouraging people to spend more time on a bike.

Cycling will never be as popular as football in this country and usually many fans people will just focus on the Tour de France. I would like to see more features on my favourite riders but at least I get to see the vast majority of races.

 

[winkybiker]

Being an enthusiast, I'd like to see more TV coverage, especially of the spring classics and the world's, but given the limited appeal of cycle road racing I'm not complaining.

Regarding press conferences and Twitter, I'm out of the loop and I like it that way. Most riders don't have a lot to say, or their team directors don't want them to say too much. And after the recent doping scandals, I don't believe a lot of it anyway.

I just like to watch the racing. And the scenery.

Agree with everything here.

 

[FQCVCS]

Wow! Awesome responses, thank you!

It's funny that a few of you say that you are "out of the loop" when it comes to Twitter, and that you prefer it that way. I feel very similarily -The only reason that my mother and I created our Twitter accounts is to follow cyclists! Although my mother now uses her account regularly bc she is infinitely cooler than me.

I appreciate the instant interaction with riders and their updates and photos, regardless of how much (true) information their posting. Then there are the accounts of David Millar and "Tweeter Sagan" which are hilarious and entertaining more than informative.

As for the televised coverage, I am wildly jealous of anyone living in europe where cycling is AT LEAST represented as a legitimate sport in some capacity. I mention the Tour de France specifically bc that's the only event covered (sort of) here in canada.

I know that every year NBC Sports advertises their online viewing package for TDF, but like most things available in the states (including citizenship! (and a decent goddamn Target)) it is not available here.

I am all for elitism when it comes to my cycling fandom, but year after year it gets harder to be a fan! Why not utilize the internet for access? Whose in charge around here?!

 

[Christian]

Twitter is very useful in the cycling world when it comes to races that are not broadcast on TV. Several examples of this are Tour de San Luis, Tour of Oman and yesterday's stage of Volta a Catalunya. Yesterday, the best information available was a spanish journalist live-tweeting what he heard on race radio. Teams often live-tweet about the races that they are in. It also allows us to get results (at least Top-10) much faster.

 

[FQCVCS]

I completely agree, Christian. Social media at least begins to make up for a serious lack of televised coverage. And judging by this quote from Froome, social media works both ways:

“You definitely pick up that buzz on the social media,” Froome told Cyclingnews during the Volta a Catalunya, “people are really talking about it, and people are getting excited about it and geed up about it now we’ve got 100 days to go. For us riders, it’s the same things, we’re slowly getting the same buzz. It almost feels like the countdown to the Olympics again.”

Social media keeps the fans close to the riders and the riders close to the fans. Nothin wrong with that!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Having worked in television, commercial production, and plenty of experience in both live broadcasting and webcasting, I might have a different angle for you.

Q: How do you feel about the limited televised access to cycling? Compared to other sports? What kind of access do you get where you live?

The best way for cycling to succeed on a large scale is going to be if it has some sort of grand space where it exists as both it's own network, plus web network. Similar to the Golf Channel, or even Fox Soccer Channel, or some of the subscription networks on cable TV (NHL, etc), or "networks" you see on your AppleTV or Roku. But this isn't ready to happen 24/7. The sport isn't big enough globally - especially in North America. There's enough events to show repeats through much of the season, and VS (before that OLN) used to do this. But if you wanted it to be it's own network like the Golf Channel, it's years away for the simple reason that while there's enough events, and might someday be enough viewers, the cost to run a production is too high. Better put, covering something like auto racing where you show up with a TV truck, 6 cameras hard wired to the truck, some pre-made graphics, and you're ready to go. With most cycling events you need wireless, helicopters, motorcycles with special licenses, etc.

Another issue is that advertising via webcast is still often in it's infancy, even though it's been shown to be effective and lucrative. It's going to take time for clients and media sellers to connect and make this smoother.

There is a chance in the future technology may change this and make cycling events easier to produce. Cameras get smaller, wireless gets everywhere, and in this year's Olympics, drones were used for some camera angles. So, eventually the threshold will be crossed. There will be enough global demand, the world will be wired enough, and events will be easy/cheap enough to produce. Check back again with me in the year 2020.

Q: Cycling has quite a unique online presence which feels more communal than other sports online. Thoughts? Agree/Disagree?

I generally agree. There are a lot of forums and cycling websites connecting a lot of people. Also I watch most events on Steephill.TV. They have a lot crammed on their site. But they're really a portal, often dealing with licensing issues and international rules. They need some serious cash to turn it into an official site of some kind.

Q: Lots of cyclists are on Twitter, like other athletes...

I don't really do much Twitter. But I agree with you. Since it's an individual sport, but with teams, you get insights unlike any other sport. If you think about it, sports like soccer, baseball, golf, MMA, etc. all have people who tweet, but you seem to get more privy insight from cycling than those sports.

Q: Is the (comparatively) limited exposure of cycling a good thing? Bad thing? Nothing?

I don't think it's bad, honestly. What it means is less money to often work with. But the sport will go on. There's an old saying: The Tour is bigger than the riders. It's very true. I'm old enough to remember the Tour in the 80's and having to read about it in the paper and watch hi-lights on the weekend TV. I'm nostalgic about it because the writing left some to the imagination, and some of those TV programs showed the sport in a light we had never seen, and were very well made. But I don't want to go back to those times.

 

[FQCVCS]

i never even thought to ask for the perspective of someone in television! You covered a lot of angles i hadn't considered, so thank you for that, Alp d'Huez!

Still surprised at the amount of fans not on Twitter! i rely on it so much!!

i don't know much about the production side of television, but i think your point about cycling being a more complicated sport to film is very valid. is it possible that only a couple of film crews could capture the event (for example the Tour de France) and then they could sell they're coverage to multiple television stations/internet-based broadcasting networks? -hope that wasn't too stupid a question?

What are the most reliable web sources you guys use to follow cycling? How widely available are they? (for example, my laptop recently crashed leaving me with only an ipad and an iphone -neither of which are very conducive to streaming). What are the best free/paid methods of viewing in your opinion?

The Tour de France (and cycling in general) seemed much more accessible when Lance Armstrong was involved. Going on a point that Avanti touched on, do you think that cycling is doomed without some form of celebrity behind it? Can Lance fix this? Oprah!?!?

Alp, you also mentioned the sport being able to go on in spite limited coverage. And you said that written coverage of the sport can be more creative with limited available viewership (roughly).

as someone who has tried to write reports on the TDF and get new fans interested, i find it increasingly difficult when i can't access the Tour myself. Not too mention frustrating as a fan! i don't doubt that the tours will continue, but sometimes it feels like i'm watching fans, or at least would be fans loose interest due to lack of access. For example, my mother and i used to get cable just for the month of july so that we watch the tour on OLN, but now, with broadcasting being so unreliable, she doesn't bother trying to watch at all and simply keeps up as she can via twitter. She's the one who got me into cycling! this is upsetting to me that she is fed up enough with lack of access to stop trying to watch altogether.

Any thoughts? Similar experiences? Contrasting opinions or experiences?

Thank you so much for the responses so far!!!