Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liz on October 21, 2011 at 7:09am

On the "arm full of paper" it appears to be a scale model of some sort.  I would not put an item like that in panniers even if it did fit because it may likely fall apart and hours of building and part of the presentation would be lost.

I think these are all expamples of times that I USE zipcar (business meetings, shopping sprees, and hauling lots of awkward stuff). Nothing deragatory here.

 

 

The only think I would change is the slogan to: "sometimes you just WANT a car" instead of need

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on October 22, 2011 at 2:43am

Well there's this: http://gas2.org/2011/10/19/pedaling-for-a-purpose-the-sustainable-s...

Jennifer said:

I'd love to see a band on the bus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on October 24, 2011 at 8:53am

Ding-ding-ding! Our only argument here, for sure.  

 

We don't argue that taking a car IS sometimes the best solution, but why is Zipcar talking to people who don't own a car when the #1 benefit of car-sharing is NOT OWNING A CAR? Therefore, the executions fail because the strategy is off the mark.

 

Brian Morrissey, Active Trans

h' said:

The essence of what's disappointing is not whether there's factual incorrectness, but the fact that they're going after people who don't have cars to encourage them to drive more, rather than going after people who might be considering giving up car ownership-- which was the original face purpose of car-sharing programs.

The only bright note for me is that this tack smells a bit of desperation -- maybe it's a dying gasp.

Daniel G said:

I think the crucial word in the ads is sometimes.

I don't see the ads as going out of their way to be derogatory. While many of us strive to be as car-free as possible, sometimes an automobile is simply the best tool for the job. And car-sharing programs beat the hell out of mass car ownership, which is more or less the system we have now. Someday our city will be the perfect bicycling environment, but it is a far cry from that today.

Cars:

-suck for short-medium distance commutes, suck for long-distance commutes when compared to the train

-suck for everyday errands/groceries

-REALLY suck for going out to bars and local events

+don't suck for moving a couch, transporting five people to the suburbs and back

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on October 24, 2011 at 9:28am

Personally, I'd be fine if that band takes a car every day. Occupying two seats each and putting their feet on the seat in front of them. That's no way to behave in public transit. Jerks...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on October 25, 2011 at 2:57am

The ad with the disgusted-looking punk band on the bus was especially annoying to me, since I hauled most of my rock band's gear - medium-size guitar and bass amps, my guitar, a few pieces of drum hardware - to the Bike Fall festival at the Hideout using a single, modest-sized Fresh Air-style bike trailer.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MK on October 25, 2011 at 3:31am

Probably because it's a lot harder to change someones behavior than targeting an existing market. I don't argue that they shouldn't be working on changing behaviors, but it's likely not going to give them the biggest return. They are a business after all. I think there's some overreaction but if so many people in the community are upset zipcar must've missed the mark.

 

Active Transportation Alliance said:

Ding-ding-ding! Our only argument here, for sure.  

 

We don't argue that taking a car IS sometimes the best solution, but why is Zipcar talking to people who don't own a car when the #1 benefit of car-sharing is NOT OWNING A CAR? Therefore, the executions fail because the strategy is off the mark.

 

Brian Morrissey, Active Trans

h' said:

The essence of what's disappointing is not whether there's factual incorrectness, but the fact that they're going after people who don't have cars to encourage them to drive more, rather than going after people who might be considering giving up car ownership-- which was the original face purpose of car-sharing programs.

The only bright note for me is that this tack smells a bit of desperation -- maybe it's a dying gasp.

Daniel G said:

I think the crucial word in the ads is sometimes.

I don't see the ads as going out of their way to be derogatory. While many of us strive to be as car-free as possible, sometimes an automobile is simply the best tool for the job. And car-sharing programs beat the hell out of mass car ownership, which is more or less the system we have now. Someday our city will be the perfect bicycling environment, but it is a far cry from that today.

Cars:

-suck for short-medium distance commutes, suck for long-distance commutes when compared to the train

-suck for everyday errands/groceries

-REALLY suck for going out to bars and local events

+don't suck for moving a couch, transporting five people to the suburbs and back

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joel on October 25, 2011 at 3:33am

There are also people who are taking transit or biking and really want a car.  You might be able to encourage them to use car sharing instead of buying, which could lead to less overall driving for that person compared to them buying a car outright.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page