Helmet company says dangerising cycling is good for business

file under: can (of worms) opener.

Selling IS manipulative. But as Mr Moss (the lawyer in the Bike Biz article) pointed out, there is a line beyond which the consumer is being lied to.

I don't think that Ms Grant is suggesting floor staff lie to the consumer. But her scare mongering advice and especially the shambolic-helmet-display idea doesn't sound too clever. Especially in America, where the "slip and fall" legal machine gets up to speed like a Tour breakaway.

Otherwise, it all looked like solid marketing tactics: refuting various consumer objections like "hot headedness" and "looks dorky" are basic skills of any self respecting retail worker.

"dangerising"? who came up with this word? ( I realise I'm missing the point of the article, but really.... dangerising?)

I went into a shop some time ago (in Hereford) where there was a helmet which had obviously been vandalised as opposed to crashed; there was even a bike chain mark on it! Complete with an emotional message. If anyone was wearing this helmet when this damage was done it would be soaked in blood. Obviously a load of crap..to me; to others maybe not so obvious. Cycling can be dangerous but this sort of thing is silly. BUT I always wear a helmet and encourage others to do so.

Ms Grant is head of marketing for Rudy Project in the US though, where the laws, retail environment and attitude to risk are slightly different to over here. I wonder how many other helmet companies offer much the same advice to their US dealers except more discretely?

And that's Rudy Project scratched off my list of companies I'll buy from.

IMO: Cycling is inherently dangerous, BUT:

You are more likely to have a car crash, and in that instance, more likely to undergo fatal damage to your head.

Wearing a helmet while you're driving would seem to be safer than when cycling, but you just don't.

ANOTHER BUT,

Just do [wear one].

It's totally wrong to latch on to this for marketing, absolute shocker from Rudy.