Wednesday, February 18, 2015

#1 with a Bullet: Enfield shoots past Harley

A lot of people in India want to get on a new Royal Enfield.
According to Forbes Asia, Royal Enfield has outsold Harley-Davidson for the first time. Figures for 2014 suggest that Enfield sold over 300,000 bikes, compared to about 270,000 for Harley.

Harley's net income is still about twice Enfield's, mainly because the cheapest Harley's about twice the price of the most expensive Enfield. But, Enfield's passing Harley in the number of units sold does illustrate the fact that in the developing world in general (and India in particular) more and more people can afford motorcycles. By contrast, it seems that fewer and fewer people can afford them here in the U.S.

Harley's response has been to produce the Street 750 and 500 models, which are 'world' bikes—they don't expect to sell many of them in the domestic market. But even a 'cheap' Harley is expensive by developing-world standards. A new Street 500 in India will set the buyer back about Rs. 400,000. That puts it well into the range of new cars in India. What that means is that even in places where motorcycles are purchased as functional transportation, even the cheapest Harley will be sold to people choosing it for a reasons that have little to do with functionality.

The Forbes story reminded me that Enfield's a subsidiary of Eicher Motors, a company that manufactures and sells Volvo heavy trucks and buses in the Indian market. Eicher's also got a joint venture with Polaris, which in a roundabout way means that Indian (as in 'brand') is now a cousin of the most famous Indian (as in 'subcontinent') motorcycles.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

There will be motorcycles in Super Bowl ads. There just won't be any ads for motorcycles, and that sucks

As the Super Bowl approaches, TV advertising becomes a topic of conversation because ordinary consumers recognize that it is the ad industry's "big game" too.

For years, Master Lock—a small company, compared to most Super Bowl advertisers—dared to blow their entire annual media budget on a single commercial in the game. It was always the same basic spot; a guy shoots a bullet clean through a Master padlock with a high-powered rifle, but the lock holds. That advertising strategy helped Master build a solid brand in that category, and it was proof that taking an expensive risk—because Super Bowl spots are very, very expensive—also delivered a big reward in terms of customer awareness and recall.

Every year, I bemoan the fact that no motorcycle manufacturer has the balls to run an ad in the big game—the kind of ad that would reach a wide audience with the goal of not just selling a bunch of bikes, but selling the very idea of motorcycling. Surely it's not that the sport of motorcycling doesn't lend itself to advertising. If you can make a great TV ad about a padlock, you sure as hell could make one about a motorcycle.

I've already written about Honda's famous 1964 "Nicest People" campaign. That campaign broke during the Academy Awards telecast, which was the most valuable ad time in the world, at that time. (The first Super Bowl was still three years in the future, and it would be some time before the NFL grew into the commercial behemoth it is now.)

Honda hired Grey Advertising—a top ad agency in the 1960s. One of the problems with motorcycle advertising today is that manufacturers have chosen to work with agencies which are not in advertising's big leagues. The one notable exception was Harley-Davidson, but even they dropped Carmichael-Lynch after years of excellent creative.

In 1964, Honda spent $300,000 on its Academy Award ad buy. Corrected for inflation, that's about $2,500,000 in today's money. So not quite in present-day Super Bowl ad territory—the nominal cost for a 30-second spot in Super Bowl XLIX is about four million bucks.

But look at it this way: $300,000 was the equivalent of Honda's gross revenues on 1,200 units of its best-selling motorcycle.

I don't know what American Honda's best seller is today, but whatever it is, I bet that if the company was willing to spend 1,200 times that revenue, it could afford a spot in Sunday's game. Obviously, the people running the company today are playing with deflated balls, compared to the guys calling Honda's plays in 1964.

Ironically, I also bet that more than one ad will feature a motorcycle cameo. All kinds of other brands include motorcycles in their spots these days, because they know motorcycles are hip and all-round awesome. Think about that: the guys making those other brands' ads are using valuable screen time to show you motorcycles they don't even sell, just to make whatever they are selling more appealing. Imagine how excited those Creative Directors, Copywriters, and Art Directors would be, if they were ever given the chance to advertise a motorcycle.

You know that cool ad agencies are full of hipsters who already commute to work on caf├ęd-out CB350s and chopped Ruckuses. Or is the plural of Ruckus, 'Rucki'?

Irony #2: Loctite is advertising in this year's Super Bowl. Yes, Loctite. They sell those little tiny bottles of goo, that you put on your nuts, before screwing.

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist it. But seriously folks. Loctite dares to risk an obviosly huge chunk of its marketing budget, promoting a product—shit, a category—that most Super Bowl viewers don't even know exists.

You know who does know what Loctite is? Everyone who works in the motorcycle industry. I hope they're paying attention to Loctite's sales numbers and awareness over the next year.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

AMA Pro Racing's bullshit logo competition

AMA Pro Racing recently announced that it was opening up the creation of new logos for it’s two classes, renamed GNC1 and GNC2, up to anyone who wants to enter a design competition and submit their ideas. First prize? $275. Let’s call it a maximum of 10% of the value of that job, if it was performed by a professional branding consultant.

Essentially, AMA Pro Racing is trying to get a new logo (actually a pair of logos) for free.

I hate that. As a guy who makes (most of) my living in the world of advertising and communications strategy, the decision to open this assignment up to amateurs pretty much had to piss me off, but it’s not just me. Google the phrase “graphic designers work for free” and you’ll see that it’s a raw nerve for the whole ad & design world.

I suppose at one level, the logo should be semi-pro at best; after all, only a handful of GNC riders are truly professional in the sense that they earn all or most of a decent living from their racing. But going about it the way they have is stupid, for the following reasons:

1.) They’ve asked for logos for two classes, and not for what they need, which is new identity for the Grand National Championship, which can anchor a revitalized marketing strategy, and a national ad campaign for the entire series. The GNC has not spent the last few decades being held back by the names or logos associated with the specific classes.

2.) Besides the fact that AMA Pro Racing’s taken a cheap-ass and unstrategic approach to this assignment, using turns the selection process into straight up, first-impression beauty contest. That’s something that pros in my industry despise. Logos don’t work that way at all. Meaning is imbued over many, many impressions, so professional logo designs need to be presented with an underlying rationale. Clients should see examples of all the ways the logo will be used.

3.) Any creative assignment is only as good as the brief the creative team gets. The brief presented to the contestants was pathetic, which is why the results are almost completely generic wordmarks. Most of them look like the logos for nutritional supplements. Only one of the top five has a motorcycle on it; look at the bike. Look at the front wheel. It’s understeering for fuck’s sake. It’s the opposite of what flat track’s all about.

Over the course of my career, I’ve had countless conversations with clients who want a new logo. One of the questions I ask is, What logos do you love? Almost everyone says ‘Nike’. Nike’s logo is actually pretty crappy. Apple’s? It’s maybe a ‘B’ effort. My point in telling you this is, many great category-defining, commercially successful businesses have mediocre logotypes. 

So in theory at least, AMA Pro Racing could use any shitty logo they get for their $275, and still take flat track back to the heights of the early ‘80s. The reason they won’t is, their whole approach to this logo assignment confirms the fact that they’re fucking amateurs when it comes to building a real brand, or marketing, well, anything.

Here’s an analogy for the benefit of the flat track community...

Imagine if, instead of proving your merit and earning an expert license, every Grand National race was open to all comers, on any bike. Hundreds of riders could show up, vying for 18 starting positions. Now imagine that those starting spots were assigned by holding 18 heat races. Winners go the final, all others go home. Now imagine this: Every heat race is one lap

Would that format be exciting? Maybe. Action filled? I guess so. But would you be able to say with conviction that, at the end of the night, the best man’d won? Not usually.

That’s how AMA Pro Racing’s approaching logo design.


I went back to look at AMA Pro's web site, and searched for the FB post that initially alerted me to the contest, and all references to the logo contest have been deleted. So it's possible AMA Pro's had second thoughts about the contest. That doesn't change the fact that embarking on it was a completely amateur move. Trying the contest in the first place is excellent evidence that, in spite of the fact that American flat track should be a major racing brand, it's being controlled by people with no marketing savvy.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Polaris acts on Empulse

Polaris made an investment in Brammo back in 2011 and upped their stake again 2012. Now, they've acquired the rest of Craig Bramscher's motorcycle business. I haven't spotted the amount they recently spent; I may not find that out until their next Annual Report. But the first two investments were (IIRC) $11M and $28M.

It begs a few interesting questions:

  • What motivated Bramscher to sell out once and for all? Is it significant that Polaris' press release makes no mention of Craig's continued involvement?
  • Polaris says it will begin making electric motorcycles in Spirt Lake IA, this year. Does that mean Brammo's existing operations will move from Oregon to the midwest? Will the bikes made in Spirt Lake be Brammo models, or is there an electric Indian in the works? 
  • Was Polaris influenced by Harley-Davidson's impressive LiveWire foray into electric motorcycles? If so, should Craig should send a box of chocolates to Milwaukee?
  • Is there any significance to the fact that, like Mission, Brammo's evolved from an electric motorcycle company to an electric powertrain company?

Back in the early days of Brammo, Zero, and Mission I visited all those companies and found that they were staffed with the expected engineers and nerds, and that they all had a few serious riders on board. But they didn't have motorcycle designers. Mission solved that problem by outsourcing that role to the iconoclastic genius James Parker.

When it created the LiveWire, Harley went the other way; they had motorcycle design capability in house and brought in powertrain expertise (from Mission).

The fact is, while there are a number of good engineering schools where you can go to learn how to make a decent car from scratch, motorcycle vehicle dynamics are more complex, and there are far fewer places you can go to study motorcycle engineering (as distinct from styling). I was always struck by the lack of serious brand-building, sales channel development, and marketing expertise in those upstart companies, too.

I always walked out thinking, They say "What you don't know won't hurt you", but if you don't know what you don't know, that can be deadly.

So it makes sense that two of those three companies have now shifted their focus to supplying other builders with batteries, motor controllers, and motors; that's what they know.

Polaris' product mix offers a ton of EV potential; far more than Harley-Davidson's does. The basic shape of a quad, snowmobile, or 'Slingshot' lends itself to heavy, flat battery deck carried in the bottom of the chassis. That's way better than trying to swing a great big battery pack from side to side in the turns.

Just the other day, I found myself thinking, I've let it go too long between lunches with Harry 'Brammofan' Mallin. I'll pick his brain and get back to you.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Did American flat track gain, or lose, prestige last weekend?

Last year, when Marc Marquez pretty much single-handedly resurrected the Superprestigio as a short track race, I pressured him to include Brad Baker, who was then the Grand National Championship #1 plate holder.

When the organizers relented and invited Baker, they at first wanted to create a siamesed event, where World Championship road racers competed in their own race, and outsiders never raced against them. Marquez himself insisted that at the end of the night, the best of the Grand Prix boys would face off against the best short trackers from Europe, along with Baker.

Baker won, to no one’s real surprise, although Marquez kept it close until he crashed (twice.)

In the spirit of complete accuracy, technically there were three Americans in the Superprestigio: Baker, who was sort of an official ambassador for the GNC; Kenny Noyes, who is an American but lives and races in Spain full time; and Merle Scherb who was a part-time GNC competitor and occasional instructor in Colin Edwards’ Texas Tornado motorcycle camp.

Fast forward to this year, and there were three official GNC racers representing the U.S. Baker, again; reigning GNC #1 plate-holder Jared Mees; and Shayna Texter, who rode for Latus Triumph last year.

Again, the structure of competition kept the GNC regulars away from the road racers until the last race. (Though Noyes, as the current CEV Superbike class champion, raced with the Dorna group.)

Trouble came early when Baker crashed hard and dislocated his shoulder in practice. Shayna Texter is not a short track ace; she’s better on the bigger, faster tracks; she didn’t make the final.

That set up the final, U.S. vs. Spain (and the rest of the world) race as a straight, winner take all fight between Mees and Marquez, who’d been untouchable in their respective divisions all day.

The problem, for U.S. flat track, is that Marquez won.

Well, maybe it’s a problem. I mean, no really informed observer believes that on balance, Marquez is already better at flat track than the best Americans. But still, that’s how it’s being reported in much of the world.

Motorcycle News in the UK, for example, simply wrote Marc Marquez has taken on the best of the American flat track world and won, beating three times AMA Grand National champion Jared Mees to win the overall class at the reintroduced Spanish dirt track event.”

Over at MO, editorial director Sean Alexander saw it as setting up a great rivalry for next year, but at least one informed flat track observer on by FB feed was, like, “What the hell? We didn’t win?!?”

The irony in all this is that last year, I had a bizarre Twitter exchange with the Andy Leisner, the boss at Cycle World, who told me that they didn’t want Baker to attend, because they were afraid he’d spank Marquez too bad, and wreck the event. No worries about that any more.

People will equivocate. They were running 17” wheels and GP rain tires; Marquez is used to that setup but Mees was not. Anything can happen in short track. Mees is not the best singles rider in the GNC; and, obviously, Marquez is a very special case. But while a lot of people in the U.S. flat track community are putting a positive spin on the event, I have to think that quite a few of them are also privately shocked. 

Last year—and this year until the final race—American flat track craved the global prestige it got from the Superprestigio. But suddenly it seems as if some Spanish johnny-come-lately has just shown up our #1 plate holder. 

Next year, AMA Pro Racing should send reinforcements. 

NOTE: For the record, before you attack me, personally, for voicing this opinion. Let me make this clear: Jared Mees is a better—much better—flat tracker than Marc Marquez is. 

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

If ASRA/CCS sanction a 200 mile race at Daytona, is it the "Daytona 200"?

I don't want to dump on ASRA/CCS, which is a great organization, but I'm shaking my head over the announcement that this year's Daytona 200 will be sanctioned by ASRA and run according to its Sportbike class rules.

Obviously, Daytona (the speedway, not the town) gets to decide who uses the "Daytona 200" name, because they (presumably) own the trademark. So technically, the race will be "the Daytona 200". But what the fuck?..

Imagine a world where the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a falling out with all the unions that control feature film production. So all the big film studios say, "We're having nothing to do with the Academy." At that point, if the Academy decides it will still produce an Academy Awards show, and they're going to give out Oscars, but they're only going to invite ultra-indy films produced by amateurs using non-union talent--at that point, is it still really the Academy Awards? Would the winners really be able to say, "I won an Oscar"?

Anyone who's followed the long decline in the 200, since the days when it attracted a truly world class field would say, even the real Daytona 200 hasn't been a real Daytona 200 since the '80s. But who does DMG DIS think it's fooling by giving the race to an amateur series?

Admittedly, the claimed $175,000 purse sounds a lot bigger than the money in ASRA/CCS races. And if enough quality riders and machines show up, DMG DIS/ASRA/CCS can make me look like a churlish old bastard for writing this. But we've heard DMG make big purse claims before, which proved to be so much bluster and hot air. It remains to be seen how DIS delivers on this promise.

As far as I'm concerned, if they're going to legitimize this incarnation of the 200 by virtue of the size of the purse, $175,000 is about $325k short. Offer $150k/$100k/$75k for the podium, and pay enough through 15th to cover all of an international team's travel costs, and you might see (for example) a bunch of the teams who race in the TT come over. Guy Martin and Michael Dunlop won't give a shit that the track's not up to FIM safety standards.

For the record, every time I write something like this, a whole bunch of whingebags leap to the defense of the aggrieved club series. So in advance, fuck off. I think ASRA/CCS is great. I'd love to race in some of your races. But you can't just run your Sportbike field for a 200 mile race at Daytona, and call it the Daytona 200, and have that mean anything in a race with the 200's heritage. Hailwood and Agostini raced in the 200; Dick Mann and Cal Rayborn; Foggy, and Russell, and Duhamel even, recently.

This isn't that.

NOTE: After I put this up, Chris Carr commented via FB that DMG has nothing to do with the 200. I'm assuming he's right, since he's better informed on it than I am. So I'm saying DIS -- the speedway -- not DMG. I'm pretty sure they're owned and controlled by the same people, so I'm letting the rest of it stand.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Tour de Media: Bike Magazine's still got it, and Dirt Bike Test's new business model

After a few years away from the publication, I wrote a feature for the UK magazine Bike last summer. And as a result, I think they've put me on the comp list, because every now and then I get it in the mail. Besides getting it for free, the other benefit is, I get it long before it appears on U.S. newsstands.

Anyway, the issue that I just got had the final installment in a six-part story in which Bike returned a Suzuki V-Strom to Suzuki's factory in Japan. IE, a 16,000-mile test ride.

It was the sort of audacious story that made me love Bike, years ago, when I was working at Motorcyclist Magazine in L.A. Back then, it was the only magazine that we used to actually bring in to editorial meetings and pass around, to generate ideas. We were openly jealous of it, which was interesting considering that at the time, Motorcyclist had about triple Bike's circ. So it wasn't that they had a budget and we didn't, it was just that their Editor-in-Chief had balls.

Where was I? Oh, right… well anyway, in the intervening decade, I guess that the Internet hit the U.S. magazines a little harder than they British ones. And the UK magazines, like Bike, are doing an even worse job than Motorcyclist and Cycle World are, in terms of fighting a rearguard action against the continued encroachment of sites like Motorcycle-USA and MO. (Suffice to say that Bike's official web site is rudimentary; it exists only to promote newsstand sales of the print edition; the blog's only got two posts, since early 2013!)

But that great six-part feature—which was expensive in terms of travel and manpower—reminded me that Bike's editors are still greenlighting projects that no American web site or magazine would undertake.

Will that be enough to ensure the survival of the still-entirely-print Bike? I'd like to think so. As crocodiles would say, not all dinosaurs are destined for extinction.

Meanwhile, although I'm not really a dirt bike guy, I was interested to spot Jimmy Lewis' new project, Dirt Bike Test.

Lewis is a massively qualified tester, and the web site is interesting. So far, there's not much advertising on it, so it's not obvious how/if/when it might become a viable commercial venture. There's a link on the site called "Advertise with us" that explains that manufacturers can supply bikes or products for testing, for a fee. The amount's not listed. Paying the fee doesn't get them editorial control, in terms of the content, but they can decide whether they want the review to run or be killed.

Lewis says that does not mean people won't read negative reviews in Dirt Bike Test, because they'll also review bikes that the contributors or their friends own and lend them.

That made me wonder what would happen if a manufacturer paid them to test a bike, then didn't like the test and killed it, and then some friend of Jimmy's bought that model and offered to loan it to the site for a second test. Would they then run a negative review? Or would the manufacturer's initial payment give it a permanent veto?

When I was testing street bikes (for Motorcyclist, Road Racer X, and occasionally as a freelance contributor to MO) it was very rare to ride a bike that wasn't excellent. And when people asked—and they often did ask—whether manufacturers who flew me to tests in exotic locations, business class, and wined and dined me en route were essentially buying positive press, I protested that the baseline for all sport bikes was now so high that almost none warranted a truly negative review. The truth was, as testers, we agonized over reviews, searching for any negative points to offset the almost embarrassingly glowing tone.

That said, there were times at Motorcyclist when potentially negative notes were cut from my reports. I remember one Triumph Daytona launch at Barber (about 2004?) when several bikes pulled off the track making really ominous bottom-end noises. Like, main bearing or big end failures, of brand new motors in a few hours. I thought I had to note that in the launch report, but Boehm cut it.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what happens with Lewis' project. The content's great, so far, though there's not much of it, yet. And I doubt major bike makers will actually pay him to test their bikes, so the business model may need some testing and development, too.

So far, for my money, the only really unbiased vehicle tests are Consumer Reports' car tests. They buy everything, at full retail and anonymously. Then they sell the cars after testing. That means they can't ever be 'first' or even tied for first, compared to car magazines who are being invited to launches long before dealers have stock. A motorcycle magazine—print or online—that used that model would add a few grand to the cost of every test, in the form of the difference between the full-bore retail purchase price, and the price the publication could get for the used bike. And it would dramatically increase the cost of crashes, which are currently absorbed by the manufacturers (when press bikes are crashed.)

Still, they'd be buying unimpeachable credibility.