From Hankies to Hanky-Panky: Porn and Product Placement

In response to last Friday's post, someone by the name of "Reverend Dick" had this to say:

Snob-
Why are you advertising an $85 scarf? Product placement takes away from your credibility.

First of all, I resent the implication that I have any credibility. You're just as likely to find credibility on this blog as you are a delicious recipe for cream of mushroom soup. You will, however, find whining, complaining, and criticism. You'll also occasionally find pornography involving bikes:

As usual, I've clothed the model in the interest of propriety, but if for some unimaginable reason you want to look at the original photo (as well as photos of her friends) you are more than welcome to do so. It can be found in this emphatically not-safe-for-work link, which, again, is not safe for work (unless of course you're a pornographer or a gynecologist), and which can be viewed by clicking on the subtly-placed hyperlink after the end of this sentence. (porn)

Or, if you're the artsy (that is to say pretentious) type and you prefer pontification to Fofonov, I'm pleased to present this sepia-toned interpretation of my censored version for your delectation:

Whichever version you prefer, though, I think I speak for all of us when I say it's good to finally see some mountain bike-related porn.

At any rate, with regard to Reverend Dick's mini-sermon, in addition to my lack of credibility I'd also like to say that, while I did post a photograph of myself wearing a scarf that was given to me free of charge, I do not consider that product placement. It's more faux product placement--a parody of a product placement. Had I deftly woven the scarf into last Thursday's story about getting a ticket in exchange for cash ("As I waited for the officer to emerge from the cruiser, I dabbed my perspiring forehead with my Ralpha silk cravat (only $85), and its soft touch removed both the sweat and my cares"), that would be product placement. Real product placement attempts to appear genuine and unintentional.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and sometimes it can be hard to tell product placement from reality. It can also be hard to tell when product placement is intentional or accidental. Here is a good example, forwarded by a reader:

Is this product placement? Is the Great Trek Bicycle Making Company attempting to market itself as the laterally stiff yet vertically compliant truncheon of the law? Is this a subtle ploy to entice customers who fantasize about beating hippies with their bicycles? (If we're to be completely honest here this is a fantasy many of us have had at one time or another.) Even though Trek cannot control the news, they must have known when they supplied bicycles to a police department that at some point one of them would brandish his bicycle at a hippie, right? More importantly, is bicycle-inflicted police brutality even more horrific when the bicycle has riser bars with barends on it? And would it be any less horrific if the hippie were wearing a Rapha silk cravat? These are indeed difficult questions to answer. (Hint: the answers are maybe, no, no, probably, yes, and no.)

Similarly, what are we to make of this?

I posted a picture of this bicycle awhile back (more than once, actually). However, a reader recently forwarded me an interview with the designer, who has this to say:

It's not a bike for everybody. It's polarizing, I realize that. It also addresses those who have strong opinions. As far as the position goes, it's a lot more comfortable than first impressions. You have to ride it to understand it. Haters'll hate but it's a slick ride.

I'm a hater in general and I hate this bike in particular, yet here I am posting about it for like the third time. So have I unwittingly provided the Great Trek Bicycle Making Company with free product placement? Does it even matter to Trek whether I love or hate the bicycle, as long as a few more people see it? Should I go ahead and send them an invoice? And perhaps most vexing, does simply having a soul patch and flip-flops qualify one to make stylistic decisions of this magnitude?

Well, I don't know, but I do know Trek must be doing something right, because on the very same blog I saw this:

On top of all that, we brought out a straight razor shave for some man-pampering and told anybody that wanted to get tattoo'ed, we'd foot the bill. One condition, your tat must be a Trek logo or the logo of a family brand (Gary Fisher, 1 World 2 Wheels, Bontrager).

Think nobody would want to sport a Trek logo on their body for the rest of their natural life? Think again, Doubty-McHater. We couldn't ink the peeps fast enough. There's nothing worse than telling somebody that they can't get a tat of your company's logo because there just isn't enough time. Left to me, we'd still be applying ink to epidermis in the parking lot but hey, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Give people a reason to come back.

Now that's just scary. Granted, I have my own Trek-related tattoos, but they're only of former Trek family brands. (I have Greg LeMond's face tattooed on one bicep, and the admonishing countenance of paired-spoke pioneer Rolf Dietrich on the other.) Moreover, I paid for them myself, because I'm accountable to nobody. (Except to Greg LeMond, who insisted that my tattoo be of his "good side" before he agreed to sit and pose.) But to have a company's logo tattooed on you just because they paid for it is something else entirely. It's hard to tell if the person in the above photo has any other tattoos, but if so I'm guessing that this may have been one of them:

(submitted by a reader)

Of course, since it's not Trek-related, he would have had to foot the bill himself.

In the end, though, it's all about perception, and one man's product placement is another man's slander. It's all a question of how you manipulate that perception. Even the Vuelta is getting in the act:

Two days before the start of the Vuelta a España, Race Director Víctor Cordero gave his expectations. "This year the Vuelta will be the Tour. It will have the best participation of all three Grand Tours," he said to El Mundo Deportivo.

That's right, the Vuelta is now the Tour. That must mean the Tour is the Giro, the Giro is the Vuelta, and the Bayern-Rundfahrt is just an office park crit in northern New Jersey. And while Tour Giro winner Carlos Sastre might argue this fact, I'm sure Trek and the Astana boys are more than happy to accept it.

But when it comes to marketing, Trek and the Vuelta are a bunch of amateurs compared to pants magnate Michael Ball. He knows a marketing ploy when he sees one. Not only that, but awhile back I noticed he left a comment on my blog, and apparently I'm not just guilty of product placement:

Anonymous said...
Your closely guarded identity, and the resulting mystique, is your biggest draw. If you're ever discovered RTMS it's all over. OVER!

-Michael Ball, CEO and Creative Director of Rock & Republic

Sure, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking it's not really him, and that anybody can leave a comment as Michael Ball. Well, despite the lack of spelling errors I maintain that it is in fact Michael Ball, if only because Michael Ball leaving a comment on my blog is a dream come true. Also, the comment has that creepy super-villain tone. So please, just let me have that.

Speaking of Michael Ball, Rock Racing now has the reigning US Pro Champion. That's right, former professional cyclist Tyler Hamilton has won the somewhat coveted Stars and Stripes jersey. This came as quite a blow to George Hincapie, who had this to say:

"No one would work with me," a disappointed Hincapie said after the race. He said he had the best legs he'd ever had at a Greenville championships. He said he would have preferred another trip over Paris Mountain. "Then we would have had five guys at the end, instead of 25," he said.

Cadel Evans may be the John Coltrane of Excuses, but Hincapie can more than hold his own. By combining two classic yet seemingly incompatible excuses (the "nobody would work with me" excuse and the "race wasn't hard enough" excuse) Hincapie is showing that he is a formidable excuse-maker in his own right. Sure, he's no Coltrane, but his irreverent improvisation at least puts him up there with Ornette Coleman.