British Cycling's New Sponsor

[Dogtrousers]

Sorry - only just seen your post - I was out on the bike when you were posting.

Sorry I missed this post. I was too busy posting reams of angry nonsense on the internet.

 

[Alex321]

I've said it before but I'll try one last time.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Shell is evil, or what bicycles are made of, or what chain lube is made of, or Greta Thunderpants

It's to do with conflict of interest.

BC is involved with campaigning for active transport. As they are sponsored by an organisation whose aim is in direct opposition to this, they lose all credibility as any policy statement they make will now be seen to be the view of their paymasters.

Do you have a link for that aim? Because I have seen nothing stated by Shell which might suggest any part of their aim is opposed to active transport.

Yes they make some of their money from supplying fuel for non-active transport. But quite a small proportion of their income, and shrinking all the time.

And do you really think Shell would sponsor BC if their aims were directly opposed?

That is largely their image, but it isn't their aim, and this sponsorship is a small part of them trying to change that image to better reflect their aims.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Sorry I missed this post. I was too busy posting reams of angry nonsense on the internet.

Meanwhile I’m having fish and chips later and can’t decide whether to cook in 3-in-1 or GT85.

 

[freiston]

Whilst some said they were involved in leafletting to end HSBC links they appeared to only give up their BC membership after HSBC stopped their sponsorship and only when Shell got involved. It is this selective action on BC sponsorship that I can't square with people's ethical stances.

This "selective action" of leafleting to end HSBC links and only giving up BC membership after HSBC stopped their sponsorship and only when Shell got involved - do you seriously expect me to believe that this is a thing and that you didn't just make it up because it fitted your argument? Qualifying the statement with "appeared" doesn't make it work.

 

[newfhouse]

this sponsorship is a small part of them trying to change that image

Yes, it’s marketing.

to better reflect their aims.

Not a given.

 

[Alex321]

Yes, it’s marketing.

To be pedantic, advertising, rather than marketing. Marketing is when they are trying to sell something, rather than just improve their image. Advertising includes both.

Not a given.

No, but given what their publicly stated aims are, in this sponsorship, it seems to be the case.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

Well it's not ideal - but having grand tours that move 100s of people around a country over three weeks isn't ideal either.
I'm sure HSBC weren't exactly clean either.

well yes - competitive cycling has so many issues* - bits of British Cycling were somewhat involved in bullying as I recall.
Maybe British Cycling and Shell deserve each other.
* I well remember going to see the Tour de France in Kent years ago - cycled there - the cavalcade made it seem more like a festival of motoring.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

Probably tough to stomach for the purist, but for me, their cash is as good as anyone's when promoting cycling.

is there anyone/anything you wouldn't take money from as long as it's got a cycling tag?

 

[Petrichorwheels]

What is the ethical challenge? That BC is sponsored by an oil company or just that oil companies exist? As stated above, their money works as well as anybody else’s and you don’t see Greenpeace ponying up do you?

suggest you look at the respective marketing/PR/publicity budgets of Shell/Big Oil and Greenpeace.
And since Greenpeace essentially relies on donors, bunging money into sponsorships might cause many Greenpeace donors to ask some serious questions.

 

[fossyant]

BC have obviously seen it's sponsorship hasn't gone down well as all BC members got emails today.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

I'm a member and used to work for them in the search for the black gold.

They aren't too fussy where they find it for sure, read up on Big Oil.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

BC have obviously seen it's sponsorship hasn't gone down well as all BC members got emails today.

what did the emails say fossyant?

 

[Petrichorwheels]

They must be doing their upmost to diversify away from fossil fuels and linking with cycling perhaps is not a bad move.

Why do you assume they are doing their "utmost" sharky?
Have you seen their figures devoted to fossil fuels/renewables?
Have you seen their marketing/publicity/PR/bung/greasing figures for fossils/renewables?
(they do have a hell of a lot of money to play with)

You are right of course that being seen to link with cycling might be a "good move" for them.
It probably won't do that much harm.
And they are excellent bullshitters/experts at presenting themselves as eminently reasonable.
Is it a good move for British Cycling though?
I very much doubt it.
Would love to know what the figure is (is it public?) and the breakdown.
I do hope British cycling did a breakdown in their negotiations.
Including
For trashing our credibility - £********

 

[Jameshow]

Sorry - only just seen your post - I was out on the bike when you were posting.

I was driving my car when you posted, justing to check the receipt as to where I filled up, Probably not shell as too expensive.

 

[Petrichorwheels]

Wasn't there a cycling jersey (white I think) in the 1960's or 1970's with the yellow and red Shell logo on?🤔

quite probably.
Shell have a long history.
Going back to more naive times - remember all those Shell countryside guides? - I well remember a primary school teacher of mine coo-ing about them.
Very clever subtle PR.
And damn expensive.
But they do have shedloads beyond imagining of money.
And it was doubtless worth it for them.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find tobacco companies in the past having logos on shirts.
and I think you are quite probably old enough to remember the revered Park Drive book of Football.