Glen Korstrom in Business In Vancouver samples opinion around Shaw’s Mobi by Shaw Go sponsorship deal. Looks like Shaw has done pretty well.
Given Vancouver’s 10% (and rapidly growing) mode share for people taking bike trips to and from work, I think that Shaw’s sponsorship taps this growing demographic on the shoulder and says: “Hi, we’re with you”.
Writes Korstrom: “Not only does Shaw get to associate its brand with an initiative that many view in a positive light, it also gets to put its brand on a swarm of moving billboards and connects the brand with a demographic that is likely to buy Shaw products such as mobile phone plans and Wi-Fi.
“They’re really painting themselves the right colour here and showing that they care about social equity,” said Simon Fraser University Beedie School of Business marketing professor Lindsay Meredith. . . .. . . University of British Columbia Sauder School of Business marketing professor Darren Dahl: “Shaw taps into a specific consumer segment: younger and typically more environmentally conscious, . . .”
It is distressing that Prof. Meredith seems to think that Mobi, and probably bikes in general, are mostly for the poor. This contradicts research into the demographics of people who ride bikes, and is a good example of myopic motordom at its finest.
Nice how the mention of Seattle ending its bike share program due to cost was kind of ignored in this recap…
My potato salad wasn’t either! What’s the deal!
I didn’t see your potato salad mentioned in the article that was quoted. However the very spectacular failure of Seattle’s Pronto was. That failure came despite Alaska Airlines sponsorship and the ity of Seattle pouring money into the scheme.
I see Gregor quoted as saying this might allow Mobi to be expanded to Commercial Drive, rather shocking to see it wasn’t already there. But apparently expanding into Stanley Park is a higher priority for this taxpayer funded scheme. Doesn’t it seem odd the city sees it as more important to provide bikes for tourists with tax dollars, rather than for locals? Especially when the Stanley Park market is already served by private operators? It should be painfully obvious the city is using the tourist market to pad Mobi numbers and paint is a s a roaring success. Shame it comes at the expense of those who are subsidizing it.
So the only people that go to Stanley Park are tourists? No residents?
Bob – What’s wrong with investing a few dollars in a public bike share system which provides a convenient mobility option for many residents and visitors to enjoy and which will lead to more people riding bikes more often. This will provide more of the benefits that cycling provides society including:
– Improved health
– Reduced motor vehicle congestion and transit crowding
– Improved employee productivity
– Less noise and pollution
– Reduced ghg emissions.
Kudos to the city for making a wise investment and to Shaw for supporting this. Vancouver has now joined the hundreds of cities around the world which have successful bike share systems.
“Seattle officials have been working with a company called Bewegen on a new contract that would put 1,200 electric bikes on Seattle streets following the demise of Pronto, according to Cyndi Wilder, with the city’s Department of Finance and Administrative Services.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-s-failing-Pronto-bike-share-program-to-10641031.php
The proponents of the bankrupt Seattle programme said it would cost $5 million to set up. Alaska Airlines put in $2.4 million. Just a few months ago Seattle taxpayer put in another $1.6 million.
When governments are spending other-peoples’-money there’s not really any limit. The only thing they ever need to think about seriously is getting re-elected.
Does this argument only apply to bikes or also to publicly funded transit, bridges and roads?
“the bankrupt Seattle programme”
Can you provide proof of this claim? I don’t think it went bankrupt.
So Chris I guess their answer to their first money losing failure is more expensive bikes? And those touted health benefits will certainly be reduced with an electric motor. I wonder if Alaska Airlines money was just flushed along with the taxpayers, or do they get dibs on the new system?
“The riders also had ridden with some intensity. Their heart rates averaged about 75 percent of each person’s maximum, meaning that even with the motor assist, they were getting a moderate workout, comparable to brisk walking or an easy jog.”
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/the-surprising-health-benefits-of-an-electric-bike-2/
Awesome news! Mobi is such a great success story and it just keeps getting better. Another great mobility choice for both residents and visitors.
Much as outdoor advertising is to be despised – even the mini billboards on bicycles – better this use of corporate cash than the aerial advertising Subway does. They should stick to ads on urinals. That’s what their processed food smells like.