The Chainlink

Zipcar Ad Campaign FAILS; Xtracycle Piles On

 

Zipcar's new ad campaign seems to bash bicycles and public transportation in favor of using their car sharing service. 

Xtracycle, with its blog, offers a reasonable argument for cycling (natch!) rather than driving.  The reader comments are amusing; some folks have been posting the Xtracycle link to Zipcar's Facebook page, while some poor Zipcar office schmo has been removing them as fast as s/he can.

In a later post, Xtracycle reimagines the ads:

 

Zipcar really should consider firing its advertising agency over this.  They seem to have lost their way.

http://bikeportland.org/2011/09/08/zipcar-ad-jabs-bicycling-spurs-r...

Views: 1751

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joel on October 20, 2011 at 9:20pm
I don't think it is really a big deal.  I'm sure I'll take shit for saying it, but for some things a car is better than a bike.
Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on October 20, 2011 at 9:31pm

Part of the problem is that much of the Zipcar membership is car free.  Car owners have little need for car sharing.  It's precisely the folks who bicycle and take public transport who are likely to use a Zipcar from time to time and our usual mode of travel seems to be dismissed in these ads.  Look at the disgust in the face of the train riding drummer or the "geez, I wish I wasn't on a bike" expressions on the two business cyclists, for what I mean.

I have, in fact, taken an entire drum kit across London on the Tube (subway), for my brother-in-law's gig in Rotherhithe.  It can be done.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on October 20, 2011 at 9:52pm

ActiveTrans weighs in

And the view from Copenhagen

 

Permalink Reply by Ricardo J Rivera on October 20, 2011 at 10:21pm
I agree it's a dumb advertisement idea for people who love to bike. Nevertheless, not everyone enjoys biking as much as we do. Sometimes biking is not a choice for people; they might not have enough resources to buy a car, or just don't need it in a regular basis. It's an example of poor advertisement. 
Thunder Snow said:

Part of the problem is that much of the Zipcar membership is car free.  Car owners have little need for car sharing.  It's precisely the folks who bicycle and take public transport who are likely to use a Zipcar from time to time and our usual mode of travel seems to be dismissed in these ads.  Look at the disgust in the face of the train riding drummer or the "geez, I wish I wasn't on a bike" expressions on the two business cyclists, for what I mean.

I have, in fact, taken an entire drum kit across London on the Tube (subway), for my brother-in-law's gig in Rotherhithe.  It can be done.

Permalink Reply by Jared on October 20, 2011 at 10:46pm

If they want to suggest these people need a car they really should have the cyclists attempt to be carrying more.  Their load can easily be fit in panniers or baskets or probably even a messenger bag. 

 

Secondly, I'm pretty sure all those people would be better off in a cab over Zipcar.  I think Zipcar is about $8/hr.  and the meter keeps running even when its parked.

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on October 21, 2011 at 12:01am
I find it disappointing. So many other ways to promote their service that aren't likely to offend/alienate their target audience.
Permalink Reply by MK on October 21, 2011 at 12:34am

I saw this on zipcars homepage the other day. I thought the cycling one was a little silly but for the most part I agree with those saying it's not a big deal. I don't think they were deliberately trying to offend cyclists. It's not like the GM Ad or anything.

Sometimes having a car makes things easier, like holding a business meeting for instance. 

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on October 21, 2011 at 2:10am

I got an email from Xtracycle about it today, so that's when I started digging and found the Active Trans, Bike Portland and Copenhagenize takes on this.  Yes, it seems like a slap in the face--I'm a Zipcar member, as well as I-Go member, transit rider & cyclist.  Zipcar should have targeted the folks who still own cars.  How much better the ads would have been if, for instance, they showed a closeup of an astronomically high price at a gas pump and then mentioned that Zipcar members never pay for gas.  Or a closeup of a booted car wheel with a note that says car ownership has its disadvantages.  Their ads could have tried to get car owners to become car free.  Instead, they seem to make fun of those of us who use bikes, buses and trains.

By dismissing cycling and mass transit as non-workable modes of transportation, they attack the very folks who may most likely use their service from time to time.  Car owners aren't likely to be their core constituency, and these ads only reinforce in drivers minds that cycling and transit is not an option and that they should hold onto car ownership for dear life.

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on October 21, 2011 at 9:36am

The ads aren't as inflammatory as the GM ads by a long shot, but it's still a poor decision for reasons already pointed out: you're alienating a huge chunk of your own market, they're poorly-implemented (c'mon, an armful of papers? Some gift boxes? You don't need a car for that, even slightly), and they're unnecessary. A lot of people including me keep a car service in their back pocket on the off-chance we need one, I've had an i-go membership for a long time Just In Case, even though I never use it. 

 

It's not in Zipcar's interests to make cycling and transit look impractical for two out of those three ads, because if you need a car in order to bring any amount of stuff with you then you might as well just buy a car, and you don't need a car share. It's a rude campaign, and it's foolish.

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on October 21, 2011 at 10:08am
actually the first case of "people taking an armful of papers to work" is a terrible example of "when to use a zipcar" because ahh... you'd need to use the car for the entire day probably and be charged accordingly.
Permalink Reply by David on October 21, 2011 at 10:13am

One problem is that the bicycle ad is poorly implemented.  At first glance it just looks like two office workers commuting, something they could do easily on a bike with some panniers.  If they had made the building model about three times bigger I think the ad would have made a lot more sense and wouldn't bother as many people.   Porting around a six-foot architectural model is one of those times a car is pretty useful.

Permalink Reply by MK on October 21, 2011 at 10:29am
I really don't think they're "dismissing cycling and mass transit as non-workable modes of transportation." I think they were just trying to say "hey sometimes it's a real pain in the ass to schlep your junk on the CTA."

Thunder Snow said:

I got an email from Xtracycle about it today, so that's when I started digging and found the Active Trans, Bike Portland and Copenhagenize takes on this.  Yes, it seems like a slap in the face--I'm a Zipcar member, as well as I-Go member, transit rider & cyclist.  Zipcar should have targeted the folks who still own cars.  How much better the ads would have been if, for instance, they showed a closeup of an astronomically high price at a gas pump and then mentioned that Zipcar members never pay for gas.  Or a closeup of a booted car wheel with a note that says car ownership has its disadvantages.  Their ads could have tried to get car owners to become car free.  Instead, they seem to make fun of those of us who use bikes, buses and trains.

By dismissing cycling and mass transit as non-workable modes of transportation, they attack the very folks who may most likely use their service from time to time.  Car owners aren't likely to be their core constituency, and these ads only reinforce in drivers minds that cycling and transit is not an option and that they should hold onto car ownership for dear life.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service