Blackburn Rangers - HTR

[fatbikephil]

I have to say I'm struggling with people getting sponsorship / free kit to go on a cycling holiday. If Blackburn or others have to hand out free kit everywhere to make people buy it then I suspect this is becauses its not very good. I mean its not as if any of these Rangers are going to use it then criricise if it is rubbish so whats the point. Another epic marketing fail I suspect....

[ScotRoutes]

*cough* Apidura *cough*

[MuddyPete]

...If Blackburn or others have to hand out free kit everywhere to make people buy it then I suspect this is because its not very good. I mean its not as if any of these Rangers are going to use it then criricise if it is rubbish so whats the point. Another epic marketing fail I suspect....

I wouldn't worry too much about a marketing strategy that chooses a campaign name reminiscent of a second-division football team in the relegation zone. I thought these advertising gurus were supposed to look out for gaffes like this?

[Richpips]

I have to say I'm struggling with people getting sponsorship / free kit to go on a cycling holiday.

Really? This has been going on in other endeavors since at least the early 1900s.

[ScotRoutes]

There's a certain inevitability about this that I flagged up when the HT was just a glint in Alans eyes.



I'm also comparing it to the North Coast 500 as it's a very similar story.

* The roads (trails) already exist.
* People are already driving (riding) them.
* Someone links them together and comes up with a catchy name.
* Publicity ensues.
* Route gets popular.
* Some folk cash in on it.

One difference with the NC500 is that they have Copyright over the use of it in symbols and emblems. So, you can refer to the NC500 in your own material but you're not allowed to make badges, window stickers etc.

I can think of many long distance walking trails that would fall into a similar category. There's no doubt that giving something a name and promoting it as some sort of challenge/adventure will only encourage more usage and some folk will make money from that (e.g. baggage transfer services, guidebooks). I'm failing to see that this is very much different.

[jameso]

I can think of many long distance walking trails that would fall into a similar category. There's no doubt that giving something a name and promoting it as some sort of challenge/adventure will only encourage more usage and some folk will make money from that (e.g. baggage transfer services, guidebooks). I'm failing to see that this is very much different.

It's not so different, no. Brands that promote themselves as part of something to sell something should want to understand the route and its intent though. You'd need to pay to use the NC500 logo and content in a promotional series, the commercial/legal situation is different for informal routes eg the HTR or Cairngorm Loop but morally it's the same gist. The basis of how it all works is there and brands will know how all that works. Perhaps when it's an unregulated/un-TM'ed route it's seen as an easy option by some.

[GregMay]

Being a novice, you guys can come across as being a bit elitist.

Nah, we've got a whole secret forum for that. Handshakes, mugs, the lot.

Not elitist, just protective.






Some or all of this may be a lie.

[ScotRoutes]

You'd need to pay to use the NC500 logo and content in a promotional series, the commercial/legal situation is different for informal routes eg the HTR or Cairngorm Loop but morally it's the same gist. The basis of how it all works is there and brands will know how all that works. Perhaps when it's an unregulated/un-TM'ed route it's seen as an easy option by some.

Yeah, maybe Alan missed a trick by not coming up with a fancy logo

[jameso]

Fancy logo or not you'd need it protecting but it shouldn't be needed here.

[wriggles]

have to say I'm struggling with people getting sponsorship / free kit to go on a cycling holiday. If Blackburn or others have to hand out free kit everywhere to make people buy it then I suspect this is becauses its not very good. I mean its not as if any of these Rangers are going to use it then criricise if it is rubbish so whats the point. Another epic marketing fail I suspect....

The two I rode with had a lot of feedback on their Blackburn luggage. It's not appropriate for me to say what that was on a public forum - you would need to ask them or Blackburn - but I won't be buying any, anytime soon. They also stated that their feedback was also exactly what Blackburn wanted from the programme. To be fair to them, they were just a pair of ordinary people in their mid twenties and this sponsorship enabled them to do the trip. One of them hadnt ridden a bike 3 months before starting. Whether it also included funding for food etc I don't know.

[touch]

Looks to me like they have respected Alan's request not to publicise the route? (Although, I obviously dont know exactly what they asked Alan) There's no mention of HTR550 on their site. Presumably the write-up from the ranger wont mention the name either. They will want some nice pictures of their kit being used in some nice scenery and a report of how it survived 550 miles through the highlands - the details of where the route actually was wont be important.

For those of us in the know, it's clear from the route stats that they mean the HTR but for anyone reading it who isnt aware of the race, there's no obvious link to it.

[metalheart]

Nah, we've got a whole secret forum for that. Handshakes, mugs, the lot.

On the dark web I hope, wouldn't want the secret getting out...

Fancy logo or not you'd need it protecting but it shouldn't be needed here.

I get that there are ethics involved (I used to do a bit of climbing and understand how heated things can get) but its the big bad world out there (and Blackburn are half that world away). Once your baby is out in the world sometimes you just have to let it stand on its own two feet...

Being positive about it, I'd say that someone recognises the quality of the route is a good thing. It's in some pretty decent company!

Wait, you have mugs now? Oh, I want one...*





* due to the high ethics quotient required on here I have to state I ripped that off Bongwater

[ScotRoutes]

http://singletrackworld.com/2017/01/bla ... to-the-uk/

[Bearbonesnorm]

http://singletrackworld.com/2017/01/bla ... to-the-uk/

No mention of the Highland Trail there then

Maybe I'm reading too deeply between the lines and while that press release doesn't actually say it, it does kind of imply that there is something almost official or sactioned between themselves and the HT.

[GregMay]

http://singletrackworld.com/2017/01/bla ... to-the-uk/

No mention of the Highland Trail there then

Maybe I'm reading too deeply between the lines and while that press release doesn't actually say it, it does kind of imply that there is something almost official or sanctioned between themselves and the HT.

The implying was the reason I posted this back in the first place. Which irks.

[Pyro]

Maybe I'm reading too deeply between the lines and while that press release doesn't actually say it, it does kind of imply that there is something almost official or sactioned between themselves and the HT.

I know what you mean, but I wouldn't say so myself. It's like a press release saying a sponsored DH or XC team saying they're going to such-and-such a race as the focus of their season: Doesn't imply any 'corporate' link between themselves and the event, just says they'll be there.

Whichever way you read it, there's little-to-nothing an organiser can do to prevent that bar refusing them an entry, which in the case of open ITTs is probably more problematic than it's worth. If Alan (or any other organiser) wanted to exercise their option to bar them from a group start, they'd be treading on tricky ground. Without the formalised agreements in place with landowners etc to allow running of an organised event across their land - which the various ITT's, group start or otherwise, seem to try and distance themselves from - then you can't really stop someone starting with the group without opening a can of worms about the status of the event. It would also (to me at least) definitely smack of elitism, and would be counter productive as even then, the organiser couldn't stop them setting off a minute after the mass start and doing what the hell they wanted. Were it a closed road sportive, or an event on private land, that would be different. Take the example of the guys being told they couldn't do the Fred Whitton on fat bikes...

I had a long chat* with a road sportive organiser about intellectual property in terms of route planning. While there's an understandable element of protectionism, I'm of the opinion that it's very difficult to claim an IP on a route which uses public highways and byways, as a) it could be hard to prove a 'first' use of that route and b) the rationale of creating a loop of X miles in such-and-such an area will usually throw up a main loop with a handful of minor routing variations which then come down to safety (in the sense of an organised event) or preference (in the case of individual riders). While an organiser might be the first to run that specific variation as an event, it's almost impossible to prove they were the first to use/ride that route, and therefore similarly impossible to assert intellectual copyright. Hence the NC500 asserting copyright on their logo etc, but not the route itself.


*read: argument

[DoctorRad]

I had a long chat with a road sportive organiser about intellectual property in terms of route planning...

Where money is involved, people can get very defensive.

There's a week-long 'enduro' stage race in the south of France, which used to be run on the same route every year. The organisers also went on to offer supported holidays using the same route. I was interested in researching it as a multi-day, non-competitive route so started making some enquiries. I emailed a friend-of-a-friend who I knew had been a marshal on the route, and got a fairly polite 'no chance' reply.

I was then slagged off on another private forum (of which the friend is a member) for daring to make enquiries about the route: doesn't he realise how much effort has gone into creating this route / that this is the basis of someone's livelihood etc etc. The event organiser also got a post of mine on a public forum taken down as it referenced a route on which one of his local mates ran supported 3-day trips.

I eventually found the event route on Strava and downloaded it from there.

[Pyro]

I had a long chat with a road sportive organiser about intellectual property in terms of route planning...

Where money is involved, people can get very defensive...

Oh aye. Our 'discussion' got funnier after said organiser (not originally from the area) had it pointed out that 90% of his route was a regular ride a couple of locals had taken him on when he first moved in...

[Chew]

Whichever way you read it, there's little-to-nothing an organiser can do to prevent that bar refusing them an entry, which in the case of open ITTs is probably more problematic than it's worth. If Alan (or any other organiser) wanted to exercise their option to bar them from a group start, they'd be treading on tricky ground. Without the formalised agreements in place with landowners etc to allow running of an organised event across their land - which the various ITT's, group start or otherwise, seem to try and distance themselves from - then you can't really stop someone starting with the group without opening a can of worms about the status of the event. It would also (to me at least) definitely smack of elitism, and would be counter productive as even then, the organiser couldn't stop them setting off a minute after the mass start and doing what the hell they wanted.

Yes but it all comes back to:

Its about respect and rule #1

The risk is that Alan and others could just consider that these events are becoming too much hassle, and then they end up pulling them from the public domain. You only know they are happening if you know the secret handshake.

[Pyro]

Yes but it all comes back to:

Its about respect and rule #1

The risk is that Alan and others could just consider that these events are becoming too much hassle, and then they end up pulling them from the public domain. You only know they are happening if you know the secret handshake.

Yup. But since these are supposed to be Individual Time Trials, not (and I repeat NOT) races, with the route already in the public domain (bar the aforementioned minor variations), what's the difference? If it's not a formalised 'event', if it's just a bunch of people rocking up to ride a route, what does it matter who those people are and who they're supported by?

The ITT/not race/not official event thing looks like a double-edged sword here. While it cuts down some of the legislative/administrative workload, it means you're powerless against anyone who decides not to respect Rule #1, without looking elitist and snobbish.

[Bearbonesnorm]

without looking elitist and snobbish

I actually see a time in the future, when the above might become necessary ... it probably hinges on how long it takes the wheels to fall off the band's transport.

[Chew]

what does it matter who those people are and who they're supported by?

Its not about sponsorship, its about a commercial organisation using content for there own gain, against the wishes of the owner.

If you're the kind of person who doesnt respect your surroundings, then they'll soon learn that nature doesnt really give a monkeys in the Highlands.


I'm sure you've organised events yourself, so you'll appreciate the time/effort/responsibility involved. If I rocked up uninvited, cast a dark cloud over the event, i'd imagine you'd reconsider why you were doing it no matter how inclusive you wanted to be?

[GregMay]

The risk is that Alan and others could just consider that these events are becoming too much hassle, and then they end up pulling them from the public domain. You only know they are happening if you know the secret handshake.

It's already happened where events/rides/notraces have been invite only. Was an inevitability sadly.

[whitestone]

If the ITT or sportive is on public rights of way then there is no way anyone can be stopped from riding it. You might not be doing the "event" or group start but you can still ride the route.

The limits on numbers for the group starts is to reduce the impact of the event on other trail users. If a number of people decide to "gatecrash" the start for whatever reason then it ruins it for everyone and is incredibly selfish. Road sportives, at least those on open roads, limit the number of riders setting off at any one time for the same reason.

In contrast something like the Three Peaks cyclocross race uses lines that aren't rights of way let alone bridleways and are only open for the day so it's asked that you don't train on the route or ride it at other times.

[Pyro]

Probably should have caveated all of this with a statement saying that I don't necessarily disagree with you Chew. I like a good discussion, which unfortunately means I usually come across as an argumentative < expletive deleted >. Apologies if that's the case!

what does it matter who those people are and who they're supported by?

Its not about sponsorship, its about a commercial organisation using content for there own gain, against the wishes of the owner.

Firstly, Alan's post at the top only says "They emailed me about this back in October and I politely declined as I want to keep HT550 free of any commercial sponsorship" - It doesn't say what they asked/proposed and what he declined, so we're all working on possibly incorrect assumptions. My taking from that statement is that they offered to sponsor the HTR as an event, not that they want some of their riders to attend it. The implications of those two things are very different.

I'm sure you've organised events yourself, so you'll appreciate the time/effort/responsibility involved. If I rocked up uninvited, cast a dark cloud over the event, i'd imagine you'd reconsider why you were doing it no matter how inclusive you wanted to be?

This kind of harks back to what I've been trying to get at (and yes, I have, thought not at the scale or magnitude of the HT!). As far as I can tell (not having participated in one), these group starts are supposed to be open and inclusive, not exclusive and invitational, so your point about 'rocking up uninvited' is moot: No-one is formally invited, so no one can be 'uninvited'. If someone turns up that you didn't want there, while that's unfortunate, you've no means to prevent their participation without it potentially looking bad for you as much as for them.

Being purely hypothetical, were this my event:
If I'm setting this up as an open-to-all start, I can't prevent a company advertising that their sponsored riders will be at it, same as I can't stop people posting on here about it, or a sponsored rider/rider with corporate links like Ian posting on their blog about it. I'd be understandably underimpressed if that company rocked up at what I'd intended to be a low key, under-the-radar 'group start' with a massive trade van, gazebos, sound system and the works, totally. But if their sponsored riders turn up, load up and head off, how is that different to, say, Ian turning up with his Wildcat Gear, loading up and heading off? So long as these people understand what they're getting themselves in to, are as prepared as they need to be, aware that they have to be self sufficient, and, as you say, can respect the surroundings, then surely there's no issue?

"Casting a dark cloud over the event" is purely subjective, so I can't comment on that, but part of my point is that most of these ITTs are trying so hard not to be classified as 'events' (not to say trying to avoid being called 'races', as we've discussed at length in the past) that we're into very grey territory.

If the ITT or sportive is on public rights of way then there is no way anyone can be stopped from riding it. You might not be doing the "event" or group start but you can still ride the route.

The limits on numbers for the group starts is to reduce the impact of the event on other trail users. If a number of people decide to "gatecrash" the start for whatever reason then it ruins it for everyone and is incredibly selfish.

Whitestone, the two bits I've highlighted in your post come across to me as at odds with one another. If the group start is just that, just a group of people who happen to be riding the same route happening to set off at the same time, then other people turning up who utterly coincidentally also happen to be riding that same route and want to set off at that time as well, how can that be selfish and ruin things? Facetious and sarcastic, I appreciate, but do you see my point? They can't 'gatecrash' what isn't formalised.

A formally organised, fully legislated road sportive has to restrict the numbers starting at any given point, that's usually part of the agreement with the local authority to minimise impact on other road users. An informal ITT group start doesn't have that agreement, so apart from an organiser appealing to people's better nature, there's nothing to stop anyone turning up and doing what the hell they like. Some people will respect that and obey Rule #1. Some people don't have a better nature. That's annoying, maybe, but that's life.