Just Riding Along

The Interbike Question

Since my first trip to Interbike back in 1997 I have always looked forward to the Big Show.  I have been as a manufacturer's rep (with Chris King), as a marketing director (with Old Man Mountain) and most recently as a consultant.  My fondest memories in this industry are still from standing on my feet all day and talking with dealers, the media and anyone that cared to listen about products and ideas I believe in.

To me, there's just something special about the all the best and brightest bicycle minds all under one roof at the same time.  To me, it's an essential place for our industry to come together once a year.   

But maybe I'm lost in some idealized version of bicycle solidarity utopia that simply doesn't exist.  The reality is that there are some companies who choose not to attend at all.  Notably absent from this year's show is Trek Bicycle Corp; they've decided on a "dealer-only" event at their HQ in Wisconsin instead.

Trek's decision makes me wonder about the future of the show...

• Do well-known suppliers with an established dealer networks still need Interbike?
• Will more suppliers start doing their own, dealer-only events?
• If suppliers aren't happy with the show, who's to blame?  Is it the Sands Convention Center and those crazy unions and fees?  Or is it the folks that run Interbike?
• A perfect trade show will never exist, but are there some fundamental changes that could make the show better for everyone?

I think Trek (and other suppliers) will regret not showing up in force to Vegas.  I understand all about taking care of existing dealers and saving the cash, but I think the branding, PR and networking opportunities are too important to ignore. 

What do you think? 

The AP on Trek and the "Lance Factor"

Ryan Foley of the Associated Press [not Forbes, as reported elsewhere] wrote a story that gives a behind the scenes look at Trek Bicycle Corp. and their association with Lance Armstrong.  Because Trek is both privately held and the biggest player in the bike biz, it's always interesting to read their press clipppings. 

The article gives Trek credit for sticking with Lance through his ordeal.  When they asked Zap about it he seemed to be getting ready for Interbike in Vegas with this quote:

"It was like putting a penny in a slot and winning a million bucks."

The story also pointed out that much of Trek's success in high-end road bikes can be attributed to aging baby-boomers and their growing interest in cycling, a topic I touched on recently.

The final quote went to the curator of the Wisconsin Historical Museum in Madison.  A museum curator?  What would he know?  I thought the same thing, but it turns out his museum is currently running an exhibition called "WisconsInnovation" that has a whole section devoted to Trek.  I guess in the state that accounts for nearly 20% of the entire U.S. bicycle industry even museum curators know about the bike business.

Retail 'experiences' come to the bike biz

[I've been kicking around this post for a while now and I've been inspired to finally post it after reading Scott Montgomery's (former VP of Cannondale, now with Scott USA) guest editorial in the July 15 issue of Bicycle Retailer Magazine].

According to Bicycle Retailer, Specialized and Giant are planning to create branded retail "experience" stores.  This is good news.  I don't think we can do without traditional bike shops, but I think these branded stores could be an interesting move.

If cycling wants to grow in the mainstream, high-end market, the major suppliers must provide consumers with a branded retail experience that is equitable to what they experience when purchasing other products.  We're not just competing for what they buy, we're competing for how they buy it.  I don't expect to see the cycling equivalent of a NikeTown any time soon, but that would be a good mark to shoot for.

Besides, I'd rather see the big suppliers spend their energy and resources on "concept stores" than have them try and manipulate shops into doing it for them.  Like Scott said in his editorial, heavy-handed dealer agreements that make shops carry certain quantities of certain products are not good for consumers, shops (in the long run), or the industry.

The real question for suppliers is, how will they manage the tenuous relationship with their dealers when they suddenly become competitors?