Slopestyle Riders Boycott Crankworx Rotorua Because of Low Prize Pay, Lack of Appearance Fee

Related:
TimBud
Posts
251
Joined
2/29/2012
Location
GB
3/28/2024 1:16pm Edited Date/Time 3/28/2024 1:39pm

Suffering is just (a sad) part of life, whether it’s actual pain, financial, illness. It’s there in some form for all of us.

Some of us cry and whinge about it and blame other people/things, some of us fight against it (sometimes futilely), some of us accept it and try to deal with it as best as we’re able.

There’s a organisation in the UK (and worldwide) called Outward Bound. They were formed after WW2 because they saw that the vast majority of naval deaths were of the younger generation. They realised the older guys had a much higher rate of survival because they’d already lived through some real tough times (ww1 being one). So they created Outward Bound as a way to get the younger generation to experience tough (but safely controlled) and challenging adventures to help strengthen their outlook and lifeskills.

Hard times and tough experiences are proven to build amazing people.

If we are handed everything on a plate we’ll just have a world full of Paris Hiltons and Kardashians. Arguably beautiful but completely shallow and self serving.


 

3
4
LePigPen
Posts
67
Joined
12/23/2020
Location
Harbor City, CA US
3/28/2024 1:30pm

I'm actually... Baffled.

We finally did it.

We compared the kind of life experience we're looking at to war.

I like how standing up for your beliefs, working as a collective union, and bargaining for better pay is NOT part of what makes someone courageous. Apparently. Letting yourself get shit on and underpaid is manly and honorable. It's just the scrapes on the knees that cause irritation........

4
4
TimBud
Posts
251
Joined
2/29/2012
Location
GB
3/28/2024 1:44pm

You raised suffering.

I gave an example of.

And in my first sentence I clarified that there are other forms of suffering before said example.

Perhaps I should’ve gone with the “McDonalds ran out BigMacs, woe be me” form of suffering for you.

3
2
LePigPen
Posts
67
Joined
12/23/2020
Location
Harbor City, CA US
3/28/2024 1:50pm

'the suffering is the point' is a meme phrase against ultra-capitalist behaviors.

I was bringing up the desire for suffering in jest and you doubled down and basically said 'yes, you are correct'.

The personal insult is noted. Well played. You win. If it's personal we won't achieve anything any longer. Enjoy your thread. Suffer well, friends.

3
7
3/28/2024 2:13pm
LePigPen wrote:
It would be super awkward if it came out that all the alternates/wildcards had day jobs... And were still struggling to get to events if they...

It would be super awkward if it came out that all the alternates/wildcards had day jobs... And were still struggling to get to events if they have to pay for fight hotel and food for essentially what is a vacation. That they have to have approved by management.

Would be very awkward... If that turned out to be the case. (Guess we'll never know.) (But in the meantime we can make jokes about how people don't want to work, in regards to people who continually slam their bodies into the ground to get a slight edge on the next guy doing a trick he learned by slamming his body into the ground.)

Kids these days... I hope they suffer since I did. (The suffering is the point.)

Why would that be awkward? That's exactly what many of us are saying these guys should be doing. No one's saying it's an easy path. Lots of riders and privateers have to juggle their work life with their riding life. They have to use vacation time to travel for races and comps. Lots of guys have to figure out sick time, short term disability, etc, if they get injured (I think of someone like Steve Vanderhoek, who's a firefighter, but had to take some time off after a nasty crash at Tour De Gnar. Luckily a job like firefighting has good benefits). 

I know one guy who works construction, sold old bike parts, etc, just to get a wildcard spot in Rotarua. Sucks that they didn't get to ride and have anything to show for it (except a week's worth of practice footy for the socials), but that's how it goes. He's really, really good, but I'm not sure he'll ever be good enough to crack the top 5. Maybe top 10 if he has a good day at this point. 

I know another guy (bmx) who has been training hard to get a spot on the Olympic team for bmx park, while also working on a journeyman welder's ticket, works as a welder, coaches and travels all over Canada and the States to ride, put on shows, competes in contests and produces content for himself and sponsors. He's ridiculously talented and works crazy hard, but there isn't any guarantee he'll be able to turn it into a full time career. 

Of course I'm rooting for these guys, but that doesn't mean I think Crankworx (or whatever bmx comps my other friend is competing in) has any obligation to pay for the life they want to pursue. 

11
1
TimBud
Posts
251
Joined
2/29/2012
Location
GB
3/28/2024 2:17pm

“Suffering is PART a life”… not the point.

There are many reasons for life and if we dwell and focus on suffering we can only be negative. There are several great examples (in our tiny cycling world) that are great examples to counter that view: Martyn Ashton; Paul Bas; Stephen Murray; Scotty Cranmer; Gee & Dan Atherton; Brook McDonald (off the top of my head).

That’s not a capitalist behaviour, that’s just basic humanity.

1
2
Mas
Posts
22
Joined
2/4/2022
Location
OR US
3/28/2024 2:40pm Edited Date/Time 3/28/2024 2:55pm
LePigPen wrote:
I'm actually... Baffled. We finally did it. We compared the kind of life experience we're looking at to war. I like how standing up for your...

I'm actually... Baffled.

We finally did it.

We compared the kind of life experience we're looking at to war.

I like how standing up for your beliefs, working as a collective union, and bargaining for better pay is NOT part of what makes someone courageous. Apparently. Letting yourself get shit on and underpaid is manly and honorable. It's just the scrapes on the knees that cause irritation........

They're bargaining for pay from people who don't pay them and have no responsibility to do so. If you aren't making enough as a professional bike rider to cover your expenses and make a living you should reevaluate your choice to be a professional bike rider. 

I'd love to make the money I make now riding bikes. I'll be first in line if someone is cutting checks to cover what I don't make off my ability or marketable value. 

That's not some hot take, it's economics. 

6
3
3/28/2024 3:19pm Edited Date/Time 3/28/2024 3:22pm

Maybe the more apt comparison is MTB slopestyle to winter moguls, aerials or winter slopestyle. Do the skiers get paid to show up? Maybe there's more support from their national federations for travel and training due to some of those being Olympic-level sports. I am not trying to argue against the slopestyle guys and gals, or MTB pros getting paid more in general (it's woeful how little all the summer bike + winter downhill sliding athletes get paid relative to risk level), but that's a more reasonable comparison than the major ball + stick sports. Not many household ski and board names either, except for the few guys at the top or the Olympic medalists.

A few people seem to make it, and lots of others fighting for the peanuts.

1
gibbon
Posts
226
Joined
3/7/2019
Location
GB
3/28/2024 3:32pm Edited Date/Time 3/29/2024 5:35am
LePigPen wrote:
'the suffering is the point' is a meme phrase against ultra-capitalist behaviors. I was bringing up the desire for suffering in jest and you doubled down...

'the suffering is the point' is a meme phrase against ultra-capitalist behaviors.

I was bringing up the desire for suffering in jest and you doubled down and basically said 'yes, you are correct'.

The personal insult is noted. Well played. You win. If it's personal we won't achieve anything any longer. Enjoy your thread. Suffer well, friends.

You just don't get it do you.
These lazy GenZ'ers are too busy eating avocado toast and using pro-nouns to get real man jobs so they've blackmailed a totally altruistic organization to fund their globe trotting lifestyle of doing jumps on little bikes.
I am of mediocre skills and I have no appreciation for what they are doing so assign it no value. I have had all the ambition kicked out of me but I feel angered that someone feels they have to stand up for their selfworth because I am bitter about how my life has turned out.
I am going to argue my point by using false equivalancies , making up a narrative that fits my point of view and a bit of gas lighting.
And when you give up reiterating the same point over and over again I will insult you and claim a moral victory.......which you will find is much better than being right.

5
8
mtbman99
Posts
91
Joined
8/30/2016
Location
CA
3/28/2024 5:47pm

People have tried to bring up equivalents like privateer dh and enduro racers. They pay their own way. 
The issue is the whole bike industry is built around events that pay little prize money and no appearance money for any of the sports(it’s actually the opposite for dh/enduro in a lot of cases where they pay to compete)

What the slope guys are asking for would need to be addressed as sport on the whole not just for slope.
Where does the money come from is the next question? The sponsors paying the riders already? The event organizer that’s handing out prize checks? The government to sponsor riders?

Does it suck and we want all the riders to get paid yeah but there is not unlimited funds and  on a sport that is on the decline in popularity compared to years past it will be hard to come up with the extra cash.

reality sucks sometimes ask a 4x rider how much they get paid it used to be huge.

4
1
3/29/2024 2:33am Edited Date/Time 3/29/2024 2:33am
 

Statement from the FMB World Tour:

"The Freeride Mountain Bike Association e.V. (FMBA), as the governing body for Slopestyle, Dirt and Freeride Mountain biking and the organiser of the FMB World Tour, acknowledges the concerns that the male Slopestyle athletes voiced during the first Diamond Level Slopestyle Event of the 2024 season at Crankworx Rotorua.
The FMBA respects the decision of the athletes to boycott the event but we strongly disagree with the process, method and timing of this action. We are committed to seeking viable solutions to uphold a sustainable future for the sport, benefiting both current and upcoming athletes as well as event organisers. The FMBA is actively engaging in conversations and negotiations with the male athletes to address their concerns and discuss their demands to find a constructive path forward."

TL;DR

That Would Be Great Meme Generator - Piñata Farms - The best ...

3
jeff.brines
Posts
759
Joined
8/29/2010
Location
Grand Junction, CO US
3/29/2024 5:12am Edited Date/Time 3/29/2024 5:19am

Woah. I actually applaud CWs coming out and being real about this. 

I keep trying to find an analogy for this. The best I can come up with is stand up comedy. If you are a huge act, like Chappelle, you can go get paid anywhere you want. If you are an open mic person, you won't draw a dollar but you do get to use the stage to grow your brand of comedy. 

Crankworks puts a ton of resources into the "stage" for these riders who are mostly unknown (open mic people on a great stage). While I don't have a firm number, building a slope course costs tens of thousands of dollars. Its up to the riders to put something down that is so compelling and interesting that people love watching it the way an overweight 40 something year old tunes into supercross every weekend despite never having touched a 450. While CW obviously has incentive to help this as well, they aren't the gatekeeper here. The riders have to figure out how to make the sport less of a stunt and more of a drama filled week to week (or month to month) type of event people love tuning into (if competition is the right avenue here, which I'm not convinced of)

I sound like a broken record, but the riders need to figure out how to bring more value to the table (hint, another flip or spin isn't it). If they don't, this sport will fade into the obscurity of aerial freestyle skiing (except without the Olympics). If they do, they can have a Pastrana like presence. 

Its very ironic the post with the most views and comments with respect to slopestyle riding is this thread, not content that actually features riders riding. That ought to tell us something very important... 

 

6
3
bizutch
Posts
810
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
Fletcher, NC US
3/29/2024 5:34am

Bottom line. You will NOT negotiate terms for the entirety of the field without a riders union that is recognized as the sole work force for your sport. 
That rider's union must negotiate with the tour organizers annually with both having a good faith model in order for there to be a determined pay grade, benefit expectation and prevent both event and rider from destroying their own competition.

My reference to a Zoom/Teams online meeting...it's important to point out not even that would have worked to resolve this because if they talked by phone and decided as a group to boycott in advnace, their positions would be filled without a union agreement.

Dean Lucas mentions it in his short YouTube clip.  DH Racers can't form a union because racers aren't united.  They're all selfish. They're unorganized.  

BUT...if the STARS of these sports formed the union, the stragglers who want to "cross the picket line" wouldn't have power because these aren't basic manual labor occupations.  So that tells you the STARS are the ones in these sports busting up the attempted unionization and/or unity movements in advance of these hardline stands.

3
1
mickey
Posts
89
Joined
2/19/2010
Location
Roanoke, VA US
3/29/2024 5:46am

The only thing stupider than judged mountain bike competitions is this thread.

Like, this thread is agressively stupid.

I will come out and say that I have always been critical of slopestyle since it’s inception- judged events don’t belong in cycling.  I have never watched a slopestyle competition, never will watch a slopestyle competition, and I am deeply skeptical that more than 3 or 4 of the competitors have sponsors that pay them living wages.

The bike industry doesn’t have two nickels to rub together right now.  These riders aren’t using Ebikes- so they aren’t exactly marketable…   Gt/Cannondale recalled 3 years worth of freestyle mtb’s- go look at the numbers…. it was like 4000 units across all of North America… Less than one intermodal shipping container worth of Dave’s sold in Canada…  

The Rotura track has been built for years now, it just gets a small tuneup before the event.  It’s not some brand new expensive build.

These riders are brave and, talented, but Slopestyle doesn’t exist outside of spectacle…  it’s a circus.  Pay the clowns!

8
1
TimBud
Posts
251
Joined
2/29/2012
Location
GB
3/29/2024 1:26pm

Just leaving this here:

 

Whichever side of the fence you sit, or whether you’re sitting on it with a post up your bum, Bas is a feckin legend

2
beaverbiker
Posts
19
Joined
5/20/2011
Location
Millerton Lake, CA US
4/1/2024 9:28am
LePigPen wrote:
It would be super awkward if it came out that all the alternates/wildcards had day jobs... And were still struggling to get to events if they...

It would be super awkward if it came out that all the alternates/wildcards had day jobs... And were still struggling to get to events if they have to pay for fight hotel and food for essentially what is a vacation. That they have to have approved by management.

Would be very awkward... If that turned out to be the case. (Guess we'll never know.) (But in the meantime we can make jokes about how people don't want to work, in regards to people who continually slam their bodies into the ground to get a slight edge on the next guy doing a trick he learned by slamming his body into the ground.)

Kids these days... I hope they suffer since I did. (The suffering is the point.)

It wouldn't be awkward at all. That's how people in real life support themselves every day. Why should it be any different for slope riders?

It has nothing to do with suffering, and everything to do with life choices. Plenty of us would love to be paid for a hobby, but we realize we could have a better life by working a regular job and participating in that hobby however we want. Some people are fine living the dirtbag lifestyle, but I don't want to hear them complain about how broke they are.

Slopestyle is a hobby. If it went away tomorrow, the world would not be impacted. They aren't farmers, doctors, engineers, or any of the other thousands of professions that keep people healthy and the world moving.

I'll say it again...if they provided enough value to sponsors and event organizers, they'd be getting paid like it was 2006 when the riders were making bank. Times change, people stopped caring about backflip barspins, and the money dried up. It's a hobby that doesn't warrant a large paycheck for most of the riders.

3
4
4/1/2024 2:36pm
LePigPen wrote:
It would be super awkward if it came out that all the alternates/wildcards had day jobs... And were still struggling to get to events if they...

It would be super awkward if it came out that all the alternates/wildcards had day jobs... And were still struggling to get to events if they have to pay for fight hotel and food for essentially what is a vacation. That they have to have approved by management.

Would be very awkward... If that turned out to be the case. (Guess we'll never know.) (But in the meantime we can make jokes about how people don't want to work, in regards to people who continually slam their bodies into the ground to get a slight edge on the next guy doing a trick he learned by slamming his body into the ground.)

Kids these days... I hope they suffer since I did. (The suffering is the point.)

It wouldn't be awkward at all. That's how people in real life support themselves every day. Why should it be any different for slope riders? It...

It wouldn't be awkward at all. That's how people in real life support themselves every day. Why should it be any different for slope riders?

It has nothing to do with suffering, and everything to do with life choices. Plenty of us would love to be paid for a hobby, but we realize we could have a better life by working a regular job and participating in that hobby however we want. Some people are fine living the dirtbag lifestyle, but I don't want to hear them complain about how broke they are.

Slopestyle is a hobby. If it went away tomorrow, the world would not be impacted. They aren't farmers, doctors, engineers, or any of the other thousands of professions that keep people healthy and the world moving.

I'll say it again...if they provided enough value to sponsors and event organizers, they'd be getting paid like it was 2006 when the riders were making bank. Times change, people stopped caring about backflip barspins, and the money dried up. It's a hobby that doesn't warrant a large paycheck for most of the riders.

Dude, like 50% of jobs in the world could go away tomorrow and nothing would change. In many cases the world might get better.

Thats the dumbest argument for not paying someone I’ve ever heard. 

1
7
jeff.brines
Posts
759
Joined
8/29/2010
Location
Grand Junction, CO US
4/1/2024 7:06pm
Buckets Up wrote:
Dude, like 50% of jobs in the world could go away tomorrow and nothing would change. In many cases the world might get better. Thats the...

Dude, like 50% of jobs in the world could go away tomorrow and nothing would change. In many cases the world might get better.

Thats the dumbest argument for not paying someone I’ve ever heard. 

Anytime I hear a statistic quoted in a sentence that starts with "Dude, like..." I know its probably not something that actually comes from anything remotely resembling the scientific method. That said, I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong here, so by all means, please go dig up whatever you are basing this on...

The one shocker in this thread for me is just how bad many people are at understanding supply, demand, value and broadly speaking, markets. 

While I am the first to admit that a market is rarely "perfect' its by far the best way to ascribe value to something at scale. I really struggle to understand how people think employment, payment, salary, and the idea of what you are owed from a job works  (in real life) otherwise.

It also seems very likely many people here haven't studied a whole lot of history. Just a guess. 

8
3
bizutch
Posts
810
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
Fletcher, NC US
4/2/2024 5:20am

I think we've thoroughly cooked this topic.  See ya at Rock Creek National this weekend folks.

3
4/2/2024 10:47am
Buckets Up wrote:
Dude, like 50% of jobs in the world could go away tomorrow and nothing would change. In many cases the world might get better. Thats the...

Dude, like 50% of jobs in the world could go away tomorrow and nothing would change. In many cases the world might get better.

Thats the dumbest argument for not paying someone I’ve ever heard. 

Anytime I hear a statistic quoted in a sentence that starts with "Dude, like..." I know its probably not something that actually comes from anything remotely...

Anytime I hear a statistic quoted in a sentence that starts with "Dude, like..." I know its probably not something that actually comes from anything remotely resembling the scientific method. That said, I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong here, so by all means, please go dig up whatever you are basing this on...

The one shocker in this thread for me is just how bad many people are at understanding supply, demand, value and broadly speaking, markets. 

While I am the first to admit that a market is rarely "perfect' its by far the best way to ascribe value to something at scale. I really struggle to understand how people think employment, payment, salary, and the idea of what you are owed from a job works  (in real life) otherwise.

It also seems very likely many people here haven't studied a whole lot of history. Just a guess. 

I was being hyperbolic. The original argument was that Slopestyle riders shouldn't ask to be paid more because if Slopestyle went away, the O.P.'s life wouldn't be impacted. The original argument was disingenuous, now your ability to detect nuance further reinforces that. 

There are countless jobs that are unnecessary or redundant, does that mean those people shouldn't get paid. Virtually all marketing positions for a major corporation aren't necessary. Does the world need somebody creating commercials to sell more Oreos? How about selling alcohol or tobacco? Does any sports profession need to exist? I could argue all of Wall Street is superfluous. Can I just state, "If those jobs were gone, nobody in my social circle would notice or care, therefore they don't deserve to exist"? If you're willing to concede that, then I guess at least you are consistent. If not, then that argument is moot for Slopestyle riders.

1
9
beaverbiker
Posts
19
Joined
5/20/2011
Location
Millerton Lake, CA US
4/2/2024 11:52am
Buckets Up wrote:
I was being hyperbolic. The original argument was that Slopestyle riders shouldn't ask to be paid more because if Slopestyle went away, the O.P.'s life wouldn't...

I was being hyperbolic. The original argument was that Slopestyle riders shouldn't ask to be paid more because if Slopestyle went away, the O.P.'s life wouldn't be impacted. The original argument was disingenuous, now your ability to detect nuance further reinforces that. 

There are countless jobs that are unnecessary or redundant, does that mean those people shouldn't get paid. Virtually all marketing positions for a major corporation aren't necessary. Does the world need somebody creating commercials to sell more Oreos? How about selling alcohol or tobacco? Does any sports profession need to exist? I could argue all of Wall Street is superfluous. Can I just state, "If those jobs were gone, nobody in my social circle would notice or care, therefore they don't deserve to exist"? If you're willing to concede that, then I guess at least you are consistent. If not, then that argument is moot for Slopestyle riders.

Comparing corporate marketing to slopestyle riders? LOL. That's a big stretch. I'm sure the $6B company that I work for totally agrees with you. 

1
2
bizutch
Posts
810
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
Fletcher, NC US
4/2/2024 11:55am

If there a way for me to remove the "such and such liked your comment on a thread you posted in 3 months ago" from the Notifications Bell on the home page.

I see the "Get Notified about new comments" at the bottom of threads, but nothing opposite.

4/2/2024 2:04pm
bizutch wrote:
If there a way for me to remove the "such and such liked your comment on a thread you posted in 3 months ago" from the...

If there a way for me to remove the "such and such liked your comment on a thread you posted in 3 months ago" from the Notifications Bell on the home page.

I see the "Get Notified about new comments" at the bottom of threads, but nothing opposite.

Do what I do, which is never post anything likeable.

Problem solved.

5
jeff.brines
Posts
759
Joined
8/29/2010
Location
Grand Junction, CO US
4/2/2024 2:13pm Edited Date/Time 4/2/2024 2:33pm
Buckets Up wrote:
I was being hyperbolic. The original argument was that Slopestyle riders shouldn't ask to be paid more because if Slopestyle went away, the O.P.'s life wouldn't...

I was being hyperbolic. The original argument was that Slopestyle riders shouldn't ask to be paid more because if Slopestyle went away, the O.P.'s life wouldn't be impacted. The original argument was disingenuous, now your ability to detect nuance further reinforces that. 

There are countless jobs that are unnecessary or redundant, does that mean those people shouldn't get paid. Virtually all marketing positions for a major corporation aren't necessary. Does the world need somebody creating commercials to sell more Oreos? How about selling alcohol or tobacco? Does any sports profession need to exist? I could argue all of Wall Street is superfluous. Can I just state, "If those jobs were gone, nobody in my social circle would notice or care, therefore they don't deserve to exist"? If you're willing to concede that, then I guess at least you are consistent. If not, then that argument is moot for Slopestyle riders.

Hmmm. Strange way to think. 

While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market of "entertainment"), your rationale is full of all sorts of holes. This response requires the reader to hit the intersection of economics and philosophy to understand why what you write isn't just wrong, but a bit scary if someone actually believes it to be true. 

Lets first just pretend you have this all powerful wand where you can wave it and entire industries, career paths or similar vanish from existence. Whatever value those people were providing, or whatever they were doing, it all disappears. Sounds like you might decide to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, wall street, the people on the Oreo cookie marketing campaign, maybe sports etc. Whatever doesn't impact you specifically is gone. Poof. No more. 

...but what if you like smoking cigars? What if you like having a beer? What if you never thought of Oreos but a well timed commercial makes you go buy a pack and you enjoy them? Should you be the all powerful entity that determines this isn't "valuable" to other people or should a market of buyers/sellers (against the backdrop of societal driven regulations) decide this? Put another way, is it fair for you to ascribe value for other people? I sure don't think so. 

While I agree (and acknowledged) our current system to not be perfect, its the best I can think of. For instance, I often make the argument Wall Street should be a lot smaller than it is (and there is a "brain tax" to all of us because of its existence...instead of cancer being cured we have Renaissance Technologies). I am sure you could make an argument that the marketing team selling Oreos isn't really moving the needle, but this is where competition comes in. If an equal cookie comes to market with a smaller cost basis, this new company wins! (Neumann's Own are pretty good btw) 

My big point here is the market consists of buyers and sellers. It creates competition. Without this becoming an entire dissertation, this is how you determine what is valuable and what isn't (and how much value there is).

What you fail to recognize in your entire series of posts is how important freedom is to most of us (all?). I'd think I wouldn't have to make such a case on a superfluous mountain bike forum...but here we are.

2
2
TEAMROBOT
Posts
514
Joined
9/2/2009
Location
Los Angeles, CA US
4/2/2024 3:41pm Edited Date/Time 4/2/2024 3:58pm
Hmmm. Strange way to think.  While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market...

Hmmm. Strange way to think. 

While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market of "entertainment"), your rationale is full of all sorts of holes. This response requires the reader to hit the intersection of economics and philosophy to understand why what you write isn't just wrong, but a bit scary if someone actually believes it to be true. 

Lets first just pretend you have this all powerful wand where you can wave it and entire industries, career paths or similar vanish from existence. Whatever value those people were providing, or whatever they were doing, it all disappears. Sounds like you might decide to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, wall street, the people on the Oreo cookie marketing campaign, maybe sports etc. Whatever doesn't impact you specifically is gone. Poof. No more. 

...but what if you like smoking cigars? What if you like having a beer? What if you never thought of Oreos but a well timed commercial makes you go buy a pack and you enjoy them? Should you be the all powerful entity that determines this isn't "valuable" to other people or should a market of buyers/sellers (against the backdrop of societal driven regulations) decide this? Put another way, is it fair for you to ascribe value for other people? I sure don't think so. 

While I agree (and acknowledged) our current system to not be perfect, its the best I can think of. For instance, I often make the argument Wall Street should be a lot smaller than it is (and there is a "brain tax" to all of us because of its existence...instead of cancer being cured we have Renaissance Technologies). I am sure you could make an argument that the marketing team selling Oreos isn't really moving the needle, but this is where competition comes in. If an equal cookie comes to market with a smaller cost basis, this new company wins! (Neumann's Own are pretty good btw) 

My big point here is the market consists of buyers and sellers. It creates competition. Without this becoming an entire dissertation, this is how you determine what is valuable and what isn't (and how much value there is).

What you fail to recognize in your entire series of posts is how important freedom is to most of us (all?). I'd think I wouldn't have to make such a case on a superfluous mountain bike forum...but here we are.

Jeff, I love the world you live in where customers make educated product decisions based on balancing price against marginal utility. Newman's O's can win against big bad Oreo if they just work a little harder and make a better product! Sounds like my old school Econ classes, the neoclassical intro ones before behavioral Econ. In the world I live in, Oreo sells 100x more cookies than Newman's because of advertising, not quality, and their market share is growing every year. If I happen to want an Oreo, or a beer, or a cigar, that's due in no small part to the fact that I've been bombarded with paid images of people consuming Oreo's, beer, and cigars. Oreo literally pays for more and better shelf space at grocery stores so they're the first thing I see. In fact, this conversation about the brand name "Oreo" is making me hungry for Oreos right now, because that's how branding works. And just to take this thought experiment to its logical conclusion, in a world with no advertising, people would still buy things because we need to consume things to survive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0

5
1
jeff.brines
Posts
759
Joined
8/29/2010
Location
Grand Junction, CO US
4/2/2024 6:29pm Edited Date/Time 4/3/2024 6:11am
Hmmm. Strange way to think.  While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market...

Hmmm. Strange way to think. 

While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market of "entertainment"), your rationale is full of all sorts of holes. This response requires the reader to hit the intersection of economics and philosophy to understand why what you write isn't just wrong, but a bit scary if someone actually believes it to be true. 

Lets first just pretend you have this all powerful wand where you can wave it and entire industries, career paths or similar vanish from existence. Whatever value those people were providing, or whatever they were doing, it all disappears. Sounds like you might decide to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, wall street, the people on the Oreo cookie marketing campaign, maybe sports etc. Whatever doesn't impact you specifically is gone. Poof. No more. 

...but what if you like smoking cigars? What if you like having a beer? What if you never thought of Oreos but a well timed commercial makes you go buy a pack and you enjoy them? Should you be the all powerful entity that determines this isn't "valuable" to other people or should a market of buyers/sellers (against the backdrop of societal driven regulations) decide this? Put another way, is it fair for you to ascribe value for other people? I sure don't think so. 

While I agree (and acknowledged) our current system to not be perfect, its the best I can think of. For instance, I often make the argument Wall Street should be a lot smaller than it is (and there is a "brain tax" to all of us because of its existence...instead of cancer being cured we have Renaissance Technologies). I am sure you could make an argument that the marketing team selling Oreos isn't really moving the needle, but this is where competition comes in. If an equal cookie comes to market with a smaller cost basis, this new company wins! (Neumann's Own are pretty good btw) 

My big point here is the market consists of buyers and sellers. It creates competition. Without this becoming an entire dissertation, this is how you determine what is valuable and what isn't (and how much value there is).

What you fail to recognize in your entire series of posts is how important freedom is to most of us (all?). I'd think I wouldn't have to make such a case on a superfluous mountain bike forum...but here we are.

TEAMROBOT wrote:
Jeff, I love the world you live in where customers make educated product decisions based on balancing price against marginal utility. Newman's O's can win against...

Jeff, I love the world you live in where customers make educated product decisions based on balancing price against marginal utility. Newman's O's can win against big bad Oreo if they just work a little harder and make a better product! Sounds like my old school Econ classes, the neoclassical intro ones before behavioral Econ. In the world I live in, Oreo sells 100x more cookies than Newman's because of advertising, not quality, and their market share is growing every year. If I happen to want an Oreo, or a beer, or a cigar, that's due in no small part to the fact that I've been bombarded with paid images of people consuming Oreo's, beer, and cigars. Oreo literally pays for more and better shelf space at grocery stores so they're the first thing I see. In fact, this conversation about the brand name "Oreo" is making me hungry for Oreos right now, because that's how branding works. And just to take this thought experiment to its logical conclusion, in a world with no advertising, people would still buy things because we need to consume things to survive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0

You are missing my entire point. My example was a hypothetical one and was really to show yes, you can in fact compete in a market and the customer can ascribe value to your offerings. It was not to suggest Neumann's Own is somehow kicking Oreo's butt, but was to say through competition and how you approach a market you may find a niche (even through different marketing and product offerings) other companies may miss, or you may be able to compete at higher margins through your ability to recognize jobs or expenses that do not create value. In theory, you can offer something different, better, cheaper and/or more profitable to you (the company owner). This is a net gain for the consumer, dumb or not. 

Ultimately, what I was really aiming at in my diatribe was what I might find valuable is different than what you might find valuable. Markets are the only way to let this type of freedom "work".

I'd much prefer a real conversation than babbling on a forum, but I know that likely won't happen.

EDIT: If we really want to get into this, we'd be smart to first discuss "Measuring the Moat". Its my all time favorite economics paper, and objectively shows a lot of what I'm talking about here. 

3
1
jonkranked
Posts
602
Joined
5/5/2016
Location
Norristown, PA US
4/3/2024 6:02am
Hmmm. Strange way to think.  While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market...

Hmmm. Strange way to think. 

While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market of "entertainment"), your rationale is full of all sorts of holes. This response requires the reader to hit the intersection of economics and philosophy to understand why what you write isn't just wrong, but a bit scary if someone actually believes it to be true. 

Lets first just pretend you have this all powerful wand where you can wave it and entire industries, career paths or similar vanish from existence. Whatever value those people were providing, or whatever they were doing, it all disappears. Sounds like you might decide to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, wall street, the people on the Oreo cookie marketing campaign, maybe sports etc. Whatever doesn't impact you specifically is gone. Poof. No more. 

...but what if you like smoking cigars? What if you like having a beer? What if you never thought of Oreos but a well timed commercial makes you go buy a pack and you enjoy them? Should you be the all powerful entity that determines this isn't "valuable" to other people or should a market of buyers/sellers (against the backdrop of societal driven regulations) decide this? Put another way, is it fair for you to ascribe value for other people? I sure don't think so. 

While I agree (and acknowledged) our current system to not be perfect, its the best I can think of. For instance, I often make the argument Wall Street should be a lot smaller than it is (and there is a "brain tax" to all of us because of its existence...instead of cancer being cured we have Renaissance Technologies). I am sure you could make an argument that the marketing team selling Oreos isn't really moving the needle, but this is where competition comes in. If an equal cookie comes to market with a smaller cost basis, this new company wins! (Neumann's Own are pretty good btw) 

My big point here is the market consists of buyers and sellers. It creates competition. Without this becoming an entire dissertation, this is how you determine what is valuable and what isn't (and how much value there is).

What you fail to recognize in your entire series of posts is how important freedom is to most of us (all?). I'd think I wouldn't have to make such a case on a superfluous mountain bike forum...but here we are.

TEAMROBOT wrote:
Jeff, I love the world you live in where customers make educated product decisions based on balancing price against marginal utility. Newman's O's can win against...

Jeff, I love the world you live in where customers make educated product decisions based on balancing price against marginal utility. Newman's O's can win against big bad Oreo if they just work a little harder and make a better product! Sounds like my old school Econ classes, the neoclassical intro ones before behavioral Econ. In the world I live in, Oreo sells 100x more cookies than Newman's because of advertising, not quality, and their market share is growing every year. If I happen to want an Oreo, or a beer, or a cigar, that's due in no small part to the fact that I've been bombarded with paid images of people consuming Oreo's, beer, and cigars. Oreo literally pays for more and better shelf space at grocery stores so they're the first thing I see. In fact, this conversation about the brand name "Oreo" is making me hungry for Oreos right now, because that's how branding works. And just to take this thought experiment to its logical conclusion, in a world with no advertising, people would still buy things because we need to consume things to survive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0

i have nothing to add but my wife used to work for the company that makes oreos, and the frosting is piped around the manufacturing plant in liquid form. 

6
4/3/2024 6:50am
Hmmm. Strange way to think.  While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market...

Hmmm. Strange way to think. 

While I agree slopestyle riders carry very little overall value based on how the market works (in this case, the market of "entertainment"), your rationale is full of all sorts of holes. This response requires the reader to hit the intersection of economics and philosophy to understand why what you write isn't just wrong, but a bit scary if someone actually believes it to be true. 

Lets first just pretend you have this all powerful wand where you can wave it and entire industries, career paths or similar vanish from existence. Whatever value those people were providing, or whatever they were doing, it all disappears. Sounds like you might decide to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, wall street, the people on the Oreo cookie marketing campaign, maybe sports etc. Whatever doesn't impact you specifically is gone. Poof. No more. 

...but what if you like smoking cigars? What if you like having a beer? What if you never thought of Oreos but a well timed commercial makes you go buy a pack and you enjoy them? Should you be the all powerful entity that determines this isn't "valuable" to other people or should a market of buyers/sellers (against the backdrop of societal driven regulations) decide this? Put another way, is it fair for you to ascribe value for other people? I sure don't think so. 

While I agree (and acknowledged) our current system to not be perfect, its the best I can think of. For instance, I often make the argument Wall Street should be a lot smaller than it is (and there is a "brain tax" to all of us because of its existence...instead of cancer being cured we have Renaissance Technologies). I am sure you could make an argument that the marketing team selling Oreos isn't really moving the needle, but this is where competition comes in. If an equal cookie comes to market with a smaller cost basis, this new company wins! (Neumann's Own are pretty good btw) 

My big point here is the market consists of buyers and sellers. It creates competition. Without this becoming an entire dissertation, this is how you determine what is valuable and what isn't (and how much value there is).

What you fail to recognize in your entire series of posts is how important freedom is to most of us (all?). I'd think I wouldn't have to make such a case on a superfluous mountain bike forum...but here we are.

TEAMROBOT wrote:
Jeff, I love the world you live in where customers make educated product decisions based on balancing price against marginal utility. Newman's O's can win against...

Jeff, I love the world you live in where customers make educated product decisions based on balancing price against marginal utility. Newman's O's can win against big bad Oreo if they just work a little harder and make a better product! Sounds like my old school Econ classes, the neoclassical intro ones before behavioral Econ. In the world I live in, Oreo sells 100x more cookies than Newman's because of advertising, not quality, and their market share is growing every year. If I happen to want an Oreo, or a beer, or a cigar, that's due in no small part to the fact that I've been bombarded with paid images of people consuming Oreo's, beer, and cigars. Oreo literally pays for more and better shelf space at grocery stores so they're the first thing I see. In fact, this conversation about the brand name "Oreo" is making me hungry for Oreos right now, because that's how branding works. And just to take this thought experiment to its logical conclusion, in a world with no advertising, people would still buy things because we need to consume things to survive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0

jonkranked wrote:
i have nothing to add but my wife used to work for the company that makes oreos, and the frosting is piped around the manufacturing plant...

i have nothing to add but my wife used to work for the company that makes oreos, and the frosting is piped around the manufacturing plant in liquid form. 

Holy shit, is this thread really just an ad for Oreos?!?! Great job to Todd and the ad team, glad to see some non-endemic brands advertising in the space! 

4
TEAMROBOT
Posts
514
Joined
9/2/2009
Location
Los Angeles, CA US
4/3/2024 10:39am
Holy shit, is this thread really just an ad for Oreos?!?! Great job to Todd and the ad team, glad to see some non-endemic brands advertising...

Holy shit, is this thread really just an ad for Oreos?!?! Great job to Todd and the ad team, glad to see some non-endemic brands advertising in the space! 

You caught me! "Don't buy these Oreos" is the guerrilla-reverse-psychology-native-advertising you needed buy didn't know you wanted. Eat your heart out, Yvon Chouinard.

2
rludes025
Posts
60
Joined
12/8/2011
Location
Whitefish, MT US
4/3/2024 11:22am

My wife picked up some Churro flavored Oreos this morning... 5/5 do recommend 

2

Post a reply to: Slopestyle Riders Boycott Crankworx Rotorua Because of Low Prize Pay, Lack of Appearance Fee

The Latest