'Marketable' Cyclists: Stage/one-day racers vs GC riders

[hfer07]

In fact, I'd say that Cav's behaviour, combined with his more frequent success makes him more 'marketable', and to a wider audience, than someone like Contador who'd be limited to selling shoes etc within the cycling community.

Let me ask you a Question: Who is more "marketable" in your view
*A ride who "wins the Tour de France"
*A rider who "wins stages and gets the Green Jersey"

I'm aware though, that I'm seeing this through the anglophone prism.How do stage-racers compare for visibility in other countries? Is Rojas more marketable than Sastre (probably a fairer comparison than Rojas vs Contador?) in Spain, or is success the only factor within the home market?

Let's put it this way: Do you know that riders like Contador, Evans, Gilbert,Hushov, Vino, Basso and many more have as many fans all around the world as they might have in their home land?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I think it depends a lot on the market. In a country like Great Britain, where no one cares about the rest of the year, what happens at the Tour is more important than anything and if you were to have someone fighting for the win in the Tour it would be worth a lot more in that market than if you had a rider win all the ardennes classics simply because the intended audience has no idea what the ardennes classics are and what an accomplishment it is to win them.

Agreed. But for me, I like them all, GCers and 1dayers. Unfortunately, in the U.S. I'm afraid it's slanted heavily in favor of the GC racers. But here's an encouraging fact. Our local newspaper (I know, I know, I've already been razzed here in the forum about being behind times... like what's a newspaper) did a nice little write-up on the recent Tour of Pologne... imagine that.

 

[the asian]

Markteability will depend on nationality, appearance & personality as well as success. At present a successful British or American cyclist will be more marketable than a succesful Spaniard or Belgian. That's why Cav is more marketable than Contador or Gilbert. Companies which have a global reach are more likely to endorse a Brit or American than a continental European. Wages are not a accurate reflection of marketability. Commercial endorsements are. Wages are paid on ability, Commerical endorsements are on Marketability. A few years ago David Beckham was earning more through commerical endorsements than Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Zidane etc because of marketabilty, not ability.

 

[El Pistolero]

Markteability will depend on nationality, appearance & personality as well as success. At present a successful British or American cyclist will be more marketable than a succesful Spaniard or Belgian. That's why Cav is more marketable than Contador or Gilbert. Companies which have a global reach are more likely to endorse a Brit or American than a continental European. Wages are not a accurate reflection of marketability. Commercial endorsements are. Wages are paid on ability, Commerical endorsements are on Marketability. A few years ago David Beckham was earning more through commerical endorsements than Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Zidane etc because of marketabilty, not ability.

Says who? Some Anglophone list on the internet?

99.9% of the people in the US don't know who their vice president is let alone that they know who the **** Cavendish is. More people will know Contador in the US than Cavendish by the way. It's probably the only non American cyclist they know.

 

[the asian]

Says who? Some Anglophone list on the internet?

99.9% of the people in the US don't know who their vice president is let alone that they know who the **** Cavendish is. More people will know Contador in the US than Cavendish by the way. It's probably the only non American cyclist they know.

Since there is no Spanish list we'll have to go by the Anglophone one
Even though this link has appeared countless times, here is it again.
http://www.sportspromedia.com/sportspro_blog/usain_bolt_is_the_worlds_most_marketable_athlete/
Cav is 35th and Contador is not in top 50.
Contador would have lost his marketing appeal a liitle bit because of the doping scandal.

 

[SirLes]

The fact it's an anglophone list doesn't seem to have affected Nadal or Alonso who are both high up. Alonso is high despite not having won the world Championship for several years.

 

[El Pistolero]

The fact it's an anglophone list doesn't seem to have affected Nadal or Alonso who are both high up. Alonso is high despite not having won the world Championship for several years.

Americans love F1 and tennis. No way?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Markteability will depend on nationality, appearance & personality as well as success.

No way.

Says who? Some Anglophone list on the internet?

99.9% of the people in the US don't know who their vice president is let alone that they know who the **** Cavendish is. More people will know Contador in the US than Cavendish by the way. It's probably the only non American cyclist they know.

Joe is Biden his time.
But you're prolly right on Cav

Americans love F1 and tennis. No way?

I'll give you that one too.

 

[MatchstickMan]

Let me ask you a Question: Who is more "marketable" in your view
*A ride who "wins the Tour de France"
*A rider who "wins stages and gets the Green Jersey"

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Why did the documentary 'Chasing Legends', focus on the workings of HTC-Columbia, an anglophone team chasing sprint victories (and hoping to realise the potential of an anglophone rider who'd won several stages in grand tours the season before) rather than Garmin-Slipstream's assault on the GC (hoping to realise the potential either of an anglophone rider who'd held the maglia rosa and finished 4th on the TdF GC the year before, or if not maybe another anglophone rider...)?
Who's book's been more successful - Cav's (which he's plugged on the winner's press conference at the Tour of Cali and presumably everywhere else), or Wiggins', a rider who's also got a good deal of Olympic kudos with which to sell copies?

The most obvious use of riders to market stuff I can think of would be to endorse cycling gear: a large part of the people who watch cycling are going to be the ones buying bikes etc.
When trying to flog equipment, aren't that particular target market going to be interested in buying the stuff that they can associate with getting a rider across the line first, rather than that used by riders who's success can arguably be attributed much more exclusively to their physical prowess?
Wouldn't you be more excited to ride a replica of Cav's Venge or the Canc's new time trial bike than Contador or Cadel's machines?

Let's put it this way: Do you know that riders like Contador, Evans, Gilbert,Hushov, Vino, Basso and many more have as many fans all around the world as they might have in their home land?

Yup. So which camp is more marketable (Contador, Basso, Evans vs. Gilbert, Hushovd, Cancellara)?

 

[hfer07]

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Why did the documentary 'Chasing Legends', focus on the workings of HTC-Columbia, an anglophone team chasing sprint victories (and hoping to realise the potential of an anglophone rider who'd won several stages in grand tours the season before) rather than Garmin-Slipstream's assault on the GC (hoping to realise the potential either of an anglophone rider who'd held the maglia rosa and finished 4th on the TdF GC the year before, or if not maybe another anglophone rider...)?
Who's book's been more successful - Cav's (which he's plugged on the winner's press conference at the Tour of Cali and presumably everywhere else), or Wiggins', a rider who's also got a good deal of Olympic kudos with which to sell copies?

The most obvious use of riders to market stuff I can think of would be to endorse cycling gear: a large part of the people who watch cycling are going to be the ones buying bikes etc.
When trying to flog equipment, aren't that particular target market going to be interested in buying the stuff that they can associate with getting a rider across the line first, rather than that used by riders who's success can arguably be attributed much more exclusively to their physical prowess?
Wouldn't you be more excited to ride a replica of Cav's Venge or the Canc's new time trial bike than Contador or Cadel's machines?

People tend to go for overall winners-but since we know those "champions" are casting many doubts for doping-I currently see a market with a more profitable range for riders whose profile are related to the public on a particular way to perceive the sport-IAW people inclined to follow the classics are alike to get products from the ones advertised by Cancellara, Gilbert, and those riders specialized in that terrain-- then we have the sprinters-whose affinity for extravagant taste & wild behavior have connected somehow to certain public-for example Pozzato, Cav & mostly the Italian Sprinters have elevated the game to a certain status- or lets say - a cycling life style in which the world outside the bike has taken another meaning-with designer's clothing, fast cars & some tendencies that are catching with the public with good earnings. but what is important the most is the "rider's Charisma" & there are some great champions out there that lack that quality and therefore cannot be used for advertising- and I know some folks here are going to complain but I am going to set this example: Do you think Cadel Evans-with a TDF title & many other important victories in his palmares is capable of creating a better market compared to Jens Voigt(if he was ever used properly for advertising a product)

 

[icefire]

The fact it's an anglophone list doesn't seem to have affected Nadal or Alonso who are both high up. Alonso is high despite not having won the world Championship for several years.

How do you explain the presence in that list of Andy Murray and the absence of Djokovic and Federer?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

All such lists just remind us what the effect of a mainstream sport is.

Remember when we had the "sportsman/woman of the year 2010" posts in here? You had no cyclists up in the top 20 at all. Sebastian Vettel made it to #4 despite squeaking over the line to the title in F1; in the women's list you had a wider range of sports, but quality of achievement played second fiddle to the mainstream appeal of your sport; as I self-righteously complained at the time, Lindsay Vonn was placed at #2 but Magdalena Neuner, who got more medals, more gold medals and won the World Cup that year, wasn't even in the top 20.

But then, in minority sports, just being HEARD OF makes you bigger than anybody else. Ole Einar Bjørndalen made it to the top 10, despite being roundly out-performed all year in 2010 by Emil Hegle Svendsen. But Bjørndalen's longevity and success level has meant that for many people he's the only XC/biathlete they could name, and so he's the one that gets mentioned.

Maybe if Cavendish has another three or four years of success at the same level people will take him to heart. But I doubt it. There's only the one gold available to him at the Olympics (assuming he won't try the Madison again), and like it or not, the Tour de France supercedes all else. And while Cav may be more marketable than a GC contender who buries themselves in the bunch and gets placements, like a Levi Leipheimer or Jürgen van den Broeck, he isn't going to be more marketable than the winner, because people who don't know the sport will only look at the winners OUTRIGHT. They don't know or care that there are 21 individual races and Cavendish is winning 5 of them, they just know that he's 150th at the end of it.

You want a quick sale? "My guy won the Tour". If you want a quick sale, you don't want to have to explain why what your guy did is so incredible. You need them to be winning at the biggest events. An Olympic gold medal or a yellow jersey is something tangible; everybody knows what these are. The green jersey? Not so much.

Well, that and appearance counts. Let's not make any bones about it. Let's call it Kournikova syndrome. A footballer like Ronaldinho can advertise sporting products - everybody recognises him as a great footballer. A footballer like Thierry Henry, however, he can advertise a lot more; he's photogenic, he looks good. Calvin Klein doesn't want a guy looking like Ronaldinho in their adverts. But a guy like Federer, Henry, and so on? Sure. Hence why Lindsey Vonn was 2nd in that list of athletes of the year, and Maria Riesch, who achieved more than her in 2010, was only 7th.

 

[Angliru]

Wouldn't you be more excited to ride a replica of Cav's Venge or the Canc's new time trial bike than Contador or Cadel's machines?

What makes you think this would be the case???

 

[Nielsa]

Ole Einar Bjørndalen made it to the top 10,

Just a quick note: normally someone from biathlon would never make that list, but he got 4-5 Olympic golds in Salt Lake City back in 2002 and actually made Time Magazine's front page with "The Terminator" as the headline, so his face/name got a decent amount of circulation in the US mediasphere.

If he'd done it in Torino 2006, probably wouldn't have made Time Magazine and probably wouldn't have made that top 10. So, timing timing timing... having his best year while the winter Olympics happened to be hosted in the US.

 

[SirLes]

Americans love F1 and tennis. No way?

And of course their love of cricket is second to none which is why Dhoni, the Indian cricket captain, is number 10 on the list.

I suspect the list, whether I agree with it or not, is probably pretty close to the global situation.

The biggest Market is America and so there are a large number of Americans in the list. Sports that are popular across the world are unsurprisingly in there as well. The fact that Dhoni is in there at 10 must be a reflection of the size of the Indian Market now, although why Tendulkar is seen as less marketable I have no idea, he has achieved much more. Maybe it is because he is nearing the end of his career.

It seems to help if you are young and good looking (particularly for women)

God knows why Murray is on that list and why Federer isn't. I don't think it's a language thing but it might be age.(like Dhoni/Tendulkar). If I was Djokovic I'd be working in my media image pretty hard if I wanted to make big bucks.

If speaking English as a first language was most important Jenson Button would be on the list and Wayne Rooney wouldn't

Personally I'm surprised there are any cyclists on that list at all. Not sure why Cav is number one. Didn't think he was good looking enough or had a particular angle they could work, such as returning from a life threatening illness! He's just a bit gobby and wears his heart on his sleeve which normally doesn't go down too well in the airbrushed media savvy world.

 

[El Pistolero]

And of course their love of cricket is second to none which is why Dhoni, the Indian cricket captain, is number 10 on the list.

I suspect the list, whether I agree with it or not, is probably pretty close to the global situation.

The biggest Market is America and so there are a large number of Americans in the list. Sports that are popular across the world are unsurprisingly in there as well. The fact that Dhoni is in there at 10 must be a reflection of the size of the Indian Market now, although why Tendulkar is seen as less marketable I have no idea, he has achieved much more. Maybe it is because he is nearing the end of his career.

It seems to help if you are young and good looking (particularly for women)

God knows why Murray is on that list and why Federer isn't. I don't think it's a language thing but it might be age.(like Dhoni/Tendulkar). If I was Djokovic I'd be working in my media image pretty hard if I wanted to make big bucks.

If speaking English as a first language was most important Jenson Button would be on the list and Wayne Rooney wouldn't

Personally I'm surprised there are any cyclists on that list at all. Not sure why Cav is number one. Didn't think he was good looking enough or had a particular angle they could work, such as returning from a life threatening illness! He's just a bit gobby and wears his heart on his sleeve which normally doesn't go down too well in the airbrushed media savvy world.

India, they speak English and are an old colony of the British. Who watches cricket outside the British and their colonies? Very Anglophone.

 

[Boardslide]

Personally I'm surprised there are any cyclists on that list at all. Not sure why Cav is number one. Didn't think he was good looking enough or had a particular angle they could work, such as returning from a life threatening illness! He's just a bit gobby and wears his heart on his sleeve which normally doesn't go down too well in the airbrushed media savvy world.

Having done a quick pole of the available 18-40 females at work they all seem to think Cav has the most fanatastic eyes and eye lashes and something of the rough diamond about him. They also seem to like the heart on the sleeve approach.

 

[SirLes]

Dhoni's not in there because of anything Anglophone. He is a superstar in India. (where Hindi is the first official Language) He would be completely unknown in the USA and continental Europe and barely known in the Uk, Austrialia, S.A, etc. If I wasn't a fan of cricket I'd never had heard of him. The whole T20 revolution has become huge in India and they are creating big stars and there is lots of money. (plus over a billion people) Chances are UK, Oz and S.A players a better known there than in their own countries.

This list has come from an American site (I think) the fact it has so high in there- someone completely unknown to Americans, leads me to suspect that the list is global and quite well researched.

The ability to speak English I am sure helps as it is so widely spoken, but then so is Spanish.

 

[SirLes]

Having done a quick pole of the available 18-40 females at work they all seem to think Cav has the most fanatastic eyes and eye lashes and something of the rough diamond about him. They also seem to like the heart on the sleeve approach.

Clearly I am out of touch with what is considered attractive in men nowadays.

My wife doesn't think he is, she prefers Jon Bon Jovi. Which is good news for me as I look nothing like Mark Cavendish.


Unfortunately I look nothing like Jon BonJovi either

 

[Boardslide]

Clearly I am out of touch with what is considered attractive in men nowadays.

My wife doesn't think he is, she prefers Jon Bon Jovi. Which is good news for me as I look nothing like Mark Cavendish.


Unfortunately I look nothing like Jon BonJovi either

Never mind you've obviously got something she likes

 

[SirLes]

Never mind you've obviously got something she likes

Yes, I got her front row tickets to see Bon Jovi!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Just a quick note: normally someone from biathlon would never make that list, but he got 4-5 Olympic golds in Salt Lake City back in 2002 and actually made Time Magazine's front page with "The Terminator" as the headline, so his face/name got a decent amount of circulation in the US mediasphere.

If he'd done it in Torino 2006, probably wouldn't have made Time Magazine and probably wouldn't have made that top 10. So, timing timing timing... having his best year while the winter Olympics happened to be hosted in the US.

But this only strengthens the point - timing, multiple gold medals > anything any other time, and his name becomes KNOWN.

Those golds back in Salt Lake mean people know his name. Hence now, nine years on, people will put him in a list of sportspeople of the year, because he's a name they've heard of. "Oh, it's a winter Olympic year, better put some guys from those in. Bjørndalen still knocking about? Yea? Great, put him in". Svendsen had better results, did better at the Olympics, and is nowhere.

You can be marketing gold within your sport but have zero transferability - various titles in cycling other than the Tour de France fall in this category. Ole Einar has transferability because of the circumstances and the timing of his most successful period. His list of victories at World Cup meets mean nothing to the average man in the street. Massive number of Olympic golds at one meeting means a lot to the average man in the street.

More people have heard of Michael Phelps than most swimmers in a long time, I'd wager.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

India, they speak English and are an old colony of the British. Who watches cricket outside the British and their colonies? Very Anglophone.

Weirdly enough, it looks like the Dutchies are the only non-British Empire people at the last Cricket World Cup.

Why on earth do the Dutchies play cricket? It makes me think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0jPaTmWF5I

 

[Boardslide]

Yes, I got her front row tickets to see Bon Jovi!

Brilliant, best gig we went to when he was in Eindhoven, had free tickets and front row inside the barriers as my nephew was in the backup band, Toploader

 

[uphillstruggle]

India, they speak English and are an old colony of the British. Who watches cricket outside the British and their colonies? Very Anglophone.

If you are a star in a country with a population the size of India you are already a better known sports person than every tour winner bar Armstrong regardless of what language they speak.