Peloton exercise bike ad mocked as being 'sexist' and 'dystopian'

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you think the targeted audience was white controlling men who don't want their wives to be fat?

The targeted audience was people that don't think they want a Peloton and will ultimately turn it into a towel rack.

Here, I can show you how they could fix it with a three second ADR (additional dialogue recording). Just after she says, "A Peloton!?" at the very beginning, all they are missing is her saying, "You remembered!" And then the commercial is all about her and her journey and what she wanted for herself with the husband just paying attention and being supportive of her.

But they already have Peloton commercials for people that actually would use one. They are targeting towel rack people.

 

[thebeave]

So you think the targeted audience was white controlling men who don't want their wives to be fat? If that were the case, then they need to fire their marketing team, because the ad was clearly focused on an already fit woman fulfilling her dream of becoming an elite athlete.

That is usually how commercials work

That's not what I was referring to, but nevermind.

they don't tell you "You won't have sex ever again if you won't use our product"... but the commercial insinuates it very strongly.

I know, it's how I make my living. Only this commercial does not do that. It is very clearly focused on an aspriational message; on a personal journey.

Here, I can show you how they could fix it with a three second ADR (additional dialogue recording). Just after she says, "A Peloton!?" at the very beginning, all they are missing is her saying, "You remembered!" And then the commercial is all about her and her journey and what she wanted for herself with the husband just paying attention and being supportive of her.

Just watch the ad again, only keep in your head, "A Peloton!? You remembered!" and it all perfectly fits.

Yeah, that was my thought too. Nobody seems to have remarked that maybe this is what she asked for (off camera), and not some diabolical patriarchal plot.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yeah, that was my thought too. Nobody seems to have remarked that maybe this is what she asked for (off camera), and not some diabolical patriarchal plot.

That's what I meant in regard to film language. My professional guess is that the editing team thought that was conveyed sufficiently in her initial reaction (that it's something she wanted). Then they had to cram in the expositional ADR line ("first rider") so that's what took priority.

 

[ruby sparks]

Koy, I’m sure you’re right, and it’s interesting to hear about such things from an insider.

But would I be right in thinking that it would be limiting (commercially) if the ad only appealed to the person taking the journey, maybe I can call that person the main protagonist in this case, and not also (perhaps equally?) the not-so-much-of-a-protagonist person who might be tempted to buy ‘people like the protagonist’ the product, for Christmas?

Bearing in mind the additional layer of possibility that the ‘targeted protagonist’’, if motivated by the ad, might play an active role in the process (the response to the ad) by dropping pre-Christmas hints to their partners.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koy, I’m sure you’re right, and it’s interesting to hear about such things from an insider.

But would I be right in thinking that it would be limiting (commercially) if the ad only appealed to the person taking the journey

All marketing campaigns start with, "Who is our target market?" That's the first question asked. Who do we want to buy this thing or this service, etc? Peloton has been around a while and it has skyrocketed into a company valued at around $1.4 Billion with about 1.4 Million users. I say "users" because it's actually a tech company, not an excersize bike company. Or so they claim.

The bikes cost around $2,000, but it's the subscription service to trainers that pop up on your bike's screen that evidently has everyone enthralled.

So, aside from the interesting take from Fast Company regarding the possibility that the marketing team is trolling, this ad is aimed primarily at young professional women who "want it all"; family, beautiful home, loving attentive husband (who will buy them what they want the most), etc.

It's no great secret that women dominate most cycling (or "spin") classes in gyms by an almost 10:1 ratio, if not higher. I haven't been able to find very specific demographic breakdown of Peloton customers, but here's a BIG indicator from the CEO in 2016:

Peloton CEO John Foley told CNBC his objective is to give back people their time as they attempt to reach their fitness goals. “For the young mother, who is 40 years old, who has a 3-year-old napping in the next room, we’re allowing her to take a high energy cycling class without getting a babysitter, and without the travel time.”
...
Foley said his target users are different, saying people in their twenties and early thirties have more time to go to the gym, and to boutique cycling classes. Peloton’s target demographic, however, is 35 to 65 year old. “These are people who have children, live in suburbs, have nice homes, they have the money and space but don’t necessarily have time,” Foley said.

I mean, that's pretty much exactly what we see in that ad. I don't know precisely how old the couple are supposed to be, but they certainly seem to be their mid thirties at least.

And, again, that was from 2016, so this is clearly a demographic they've known about and been focusing on for some time.

, maybe I can call that person the main protagonist in this case, and not also (perhaps equally?) the not-so-much-of-a-protagonist person who might be tempted to buy ‘people like the protagonist’ the product, for Christmas?

Bearing in mind the additional layer of possibility that the ‘targeted protagonist’’, if motivated by the ad, might play an active role in the process (the response to the ad) by dropping pre-Christmas hints to their partners.

If that's your way of asking, "Did they also target the husband," yes, of course, and, again, barring Fast Company's take on it--which I'm not ruling out (there is a whole school of thought on negative ads we can get into; like the deliberately annoying jingle that because it's annoying, it sticks in your head), but, again, listen to the added in expositional phrase about "first rider" just after the "It's a Peloton!" exclamation.

When editing together an ad, there are, of course, certain time constraints depending on where the ad will be aired (e.g., on TV as opposed to online or the like). Depending on the director/creative team, not every ad is perfectly storyboarded, meaning perfectly planned out before shooting. You know you want this shot and that shot and this dialogue and that dialogue, etc., but nothing matters until you're in the editing bay.

Most people don't understand this, but the movie is both literally and figuratively made in the editing bay and its there where you can either be Hitchcock (who famously planned EVERYTHING out in his storyboards and the editing--and filming--was just rote) and someone like Paul Thomas Anderson, who finds all kinds of surprises in the editing phase that can even radically change the storyline.

Anyway, listen to that ADR. It is abruptly placed--awkwardly so--right up against the "It's a Peloton!" even to the point of cutting off or into the "n" of Pelton. Generally speaking, you never want to cut off or into the expression of the actual client's name in any ad, so that means there was a deliberate insistence or necessity from someone--most likely after the initial edit--that told the creative team that they needed to get that line in there no matter what.

That's my guess, of course, but I've done it enough times myself to know what that is.

Most people also don't know that you can't just put in a line like that. You have to fit it in and make it seem organic, which, again, if you listen to it a few times you can hear that it's not. It was forced and not, imo, deliberately (i.e., meant to sound like that from the start). It sounds like, again, it was something put in after the final "rough" edit (the version the team will then present to the client for final notes before the final final version) and someone pointed out that it needed expositional clarification about her being a "first rider."

Again, I could be wrong and Fast Company's take is closer to the truth, but like I said, all you have to do to make the ad make perfect sense is put in "You remembered!" (or something to that effect), where that other line is and it instantly becomes an add that is perfectly in line with what the CEO was talking about back in 2016.

ETA: Much focus has also been placed on the actress's expression in one of the initial scenes of her on the bike, but that is in regard to her being excited about starting her journey, not about her feeling trapped or ambushed or the like. There is an attempt, at least, at a character arc, but it's a fucking commercial, so there's not exactly a whole lot of time to develop a character.

She goes from total amateur--"first time rider!"--to elite Olympic-class athlete (effectively) all in 30 seconds ffs. So, you know, corners have to be cut and shorthand expressions have to be used.

 

[Arctish]

All marketing campaigns start with, "Who is our target market?" That's the first question asked. Who do we want to buy this thing or this service, etc? Peloton has been around a while and it has skyrocketed into a company valued at around $1.4 Billion with about 1.4 Million users. I say "users" because it's actually a tech company, not an excersize bike company. Or so they claim.

The bikes cost around $2,000, but it's the subscription service to trainers that pop up on your bike's screen that evidently has everyone enthralled.

So, aside from the interesting take from Fast Company regarding the possibility that the marketing team is trolling, this ad is aimed primarily at young professional women who "want it all"; family, beautiful home, loving attentive husband (who will buy them what they want the most), etc.

It's no great secret that women dominate most cycling (or "spin") classes in gyms by an almost 10:1 ratio, if not higher. I haven't been able to find very specific demographic breakdown of Peloton customers, but here's a BIG indicator from the CEO in 2016:



I mean, that's pretty much exactly what we see in that ad. I don't know precisely how old the couple are supposed to be, but they certainly seem to be their mid thirties at least.

And, again, that was from 2016, so this is clearly a demographic they've known about and been focusing on for some time.

, maybe I can call that person the main protagonist in this case, and not also (perhaps equally?) the not-so-much-of-a-protagonist person who might be tempted to buy ‘people like the protagonist’ the product, for Christmas?

Bearing in mind the additional layer of possibility that the ‘targeted protagonist’’, if motivated by the ad, might play an active role in the process (the response to the ad) by dropping pre-Christmas hints to their partners.

If that's your way of asking, "Did they also target the husband," yes, of course, and, again, barring Fast Company's take on it--which I'm not ruling out (there is a whole school of thought on negative ads we can get into; like the deliberately annoying jingle that because it's annoying, it sticks in your head), but, again, listen to the added in expositional phrase about "first rider" just after the "It's a Peloton!" exclamation.

When editing together an ad, there are, of course, certain time constraints depending on where the ad will be aired (e.g., on TV as opposed to online or the like). Depending on the director/creative team, not every ad is perfectly storyboarded, meaning perfectly planned out before shooting. You know you want this shot and that shot and this dialogue and that dialogue, etc., but nothing matters until you're in the editing bay.

Most people don't understand this, but the movie is both literally and figuratively made in the editing bay and its there where you can either be Hitchcock (who famously planned EVERYTHING out in his storyboards and the editing--and filming--was just rote) and someone like Paul Thomas Anderson, who finds all kinds of surprises in the editing phase that can even radically change the storyline.

Anyway, listen to that ADR. It is abruptly placed--awkwardly so--right up against the "It's a Peloton!" even to the point of cutting off or into the "n" of Pelton. Generally speaking, you never want to cut off or into the expression of the actual client's name in any ad, so that means there was a deliberate insistence or necessity from someone--most likely after the initial edit--that told the creative team that they needed to get that line in there no matter what.

That's my guess, of course, but I've done it enough times myself to know what that is.

Most people also don't know that you can't just put in a line like that. You have to fit it in and make it seem organic, which, again, if you listen to it a few times you can hear that it's not. It was forced and not, imo, deliberately (i.e., meant to sound like that from the start). It sounds like, again, it was something put in after the final "rough" edit (the version the team will then present to the client for final notes before the final final version) and someone pointed out that it needed expositional clarification about her being a "first rider."

Again, I could be wrong and Fast Company's take is closer to the truth, but like I said, all you have to do to make the ad make perfect sense is put in "You remembered!" (or something to that effect), where that other line is and it instantly becomes an add that is perfectly in line with what the CEO was talking about back in 2016.

ETA: Much focus has also been placed on the actress's expression in one of the initial scenes of her on the bike, but that is in regard to her being excited about starting her journey, not about her feeling trapped or ambushed or the like. There is an attempt, at least, at a character arc, but it's a fucking commercial, so there's not exactly a whole lot of time to develop a character.

She goes from total amateur--"first time rider!"--to elite Olympic-class athlete (effectively) all in 30 seconds ffs. So, you know, corners have to be cut and shorthand expressions have to be used.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and your expertise with us.

I'm sure you're right about the story the ad department wanted to present. The viewers were supposed to be happy for the woman having a life changing experience in the comfort of her own home, and think they might have one, too, if they buy a Peloton and subscription. But they overshot the mark when they went for emotional engagement. There was too much anxiety and too little anticipation on her face before her first workout.

I, like Toni and a lot of people on Twitter, have been joking about the reasons for that look because it's fun, not because it's a real issue for anybody.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I, like Toni and a lot of people on Twitter, have been joking about the reasons for that look because it's fun, not because it's a real issue for anybody.

You'd be amazed at how many others consider it a real issue. And you should also know that it's seriously impacted Peloton's financials. They have lost over a billion dollars in value as a result, so I can assure you, it is a VERY real issue and will likely result in many people losing their jobs, if it hasn't already, unless the tied turns and/or Peloton C-suite handle it properly and turn it around to a plus somehow.

 

[Arctish]

I, like Toni and a lot of people on Twitter, have been joking about the reasons for that look because it's fun, not because it's a real issue for anybody.

You'd be amazed at how many others consider it a real issue. And you should also know that it's seriously impacted Peloton's financials. They have lost over a billion dollars in value as a result, so I can assure you, it is a VERY real issue and will likely result in many people losing their jobs, if it hasn't already, unless the tied turns and/or Peloton C-suite handle it properly and turn it around to a plus somehow.

More than one news outlet is claiming the drop in Peloton shares is due a Citron Research report, not the commercial:

Peloton shares sink after Citron Research's short-seller note pointed to “clear flaws” in the exercise company’s business model.

People have been mocking commercials since forever. As long as people aren't being hurt or killed by Peloton exercise bikes, the end result will be greater brand recognition. And maybe an uptick in Aviation Gin sales.

 

[ruby sparks]

I, like Toni and a lot of people on Twitter, have been joking about the reasons for that look because it's fun, not because it's a real issue for anybody.

You'd be amazed at how many others consider it a real issue. And you should also know that it's seriously impacted Peloton's financials. They have lost over a billion dollars in value as a result, so I can assure you, it is a VERY real issue and will likely result in many people losing their jobs, if it hasn't already, unless the tied turns and/or Peloton C-suite handle it properly and turn it around to a plus somehow.

More than one news outlet is claiming the drop in Peloton shares is due a Citron Research report, not the commercial:

Peloton shares sink after Citron Research's short-seller note pointed to “clear flaws” in the exercise company’s business model.

That's a drop in response to a report that came out this week. Apparently there was a larger drop immediately after the furore over the ad last week.

For some reason, the company produced an ad featuring a woman who, for most of the commercial, seems pretty unsure of herself, and beholden to her husband. The more times I watch it, the more icky it gets. There’s arguably a damsel in distress trope in there.

So I can see why it might be considered a poor ad and I can see how that might adversely affect shares.

I still think there was an over-reaction though, all things considered, and therefore possibly more of an adverse financial outcome (at least in the short term) for the company than was deserved. I wouldn't necessarily assume Peloton will do well out of this in the longer term. I don't think increased brand recognition automatically translates to more sales if the brand recognition is negative. They have competitors and it could go the other way if they don't do something to correct it. I'm no fan of rampant consumerism and in the end if they screw up their brand with iffy advertising, that's on them, but at the same time, people make a living from the companies who advertise.

On a wider note, I'm not sure about this whole trend for censuring and even (here in the UK) banning individual ads for not being gender-equitable enough, whether they be perceived as unfair to men or unfair to women, because although there are issues and concerns I'm sympathetic to, the way it's happening seems like overkill when the ads are arguably only mildly at fault in those terms. If I thought the ads in question were blatantly at fault, I might take a different line. Though in the long run it will probably make advertisers adjust their output to be more politically correct. And in some cases in some ways a sense of humour and/or tolerance will be partially lost (I’m thinking of the Philadelphia and McDonalds ads posted here for example). Though I doubt the sky will fall.

 

[ruby sparks]

All marketing campaigns start with, "Who is our target market?" That's the first question asked.......

........She goes from total amateur--"first time rider!"--to elite Olympic-class athlete (effectively) all in 30 seconds ffs. So, you know, corners have to be cut and shorthand expressions have to be used.

Thanks for the useful & interesting insights. yes, I think I can hear how the 'first rider' line is, dare I use the expression, shoe horned in.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I, like Toni and a lot of people on Twitter, have been joking about the reasons for that look because it's fun, not because it's a real issue for anybody.

You'd be amazed at how many others consider it a real issue. And you should also know that it's seriously impacted Peloton's financials. They have lost over a billion dollars in value as a result, so I can assure you, it is a VERY real issue and will likely result in many people losing their jobs, if it hasn't already, unless the tied turns and/or Peloton C-suite handle it properly and turn it around to a plus somehow.

More than one news outlet is claiming the drop in Peloton shares is due a Citron Research report, not the commercial:

Peloton shares sink after Citron Research's short-seller note pointed to “clear flaws” in the exercise company’s business model.

People have been mocking commercials since forever. As long as people aren't being hurt or killed by Peloton exercise bikes, the end result will be greater brand recognition. And maybe an uptick in Aviation Gin sales.

It's certainly possible. It's a delicate tight rope if you're attempting such a strategy (and unnecessary imo, but they didn't hire me). The question now becomes how to respond (if at all).

It is interesting to note that Hugh Jackman is evidently one of their biggest promoters and Jackman is famously friends with Ryan Reynolds, so there may be more to Fast Company's take on this, but that's also the kind of strategy you generally employ (if at all) when in desperate straits. That piece from CNBC--and the report referenced--came out long after the ad was first planned and shot, let alone aired, so if the commercial were somehow meant to pre-empt that report, they would have had to have known many many months prior to airing the commercial that such a report was going to be released.

And then I still don't see how pitching the idea of deliberately creating a negative, sexist backlash against their company would in any way be the best move to counter such a report, but stranger things.

If it is a bolder crossover ad campaign (involving Jackman and Reynolds as well), then, again it's an extremely risky strategy, so my guess would be that the Reynolds move--if it is anything more and somehow orchestrated by Peloton--would be a way to mitigate the backlash. That would be brilliant, but the idea that Peloton's marketing department decided to come up with a deliberately sexist ad for the purposes of starting a controversial backlash--that they would have no way of controlling--only to then attempt an even riskier cross-over campaign that escalates and exploits the backlash seems pretty Machiavellian (and even more difficult to orchestrate and puppet), but not outside the realm.

Again, I would have to go back to the fact that their CEO pretty much detailed exactly the spot I'm talking about back in 2016, they just screwed the pooch on the execution and cut the important qualifying line ("You remembered" or the like) in favor of the expositional line about being a "first rider."

It happens all the time. Marketers are by no means infallible human beings.

One thing is for sure, though. No matter what they need to step in and figure out how to make it SEEM as if this were all planned, so if their creative team isn't already doing precisely that, then they're idiots. And the best way would be to have Jackman shoot (or otherwise deliver) the response, so that everyone starts to get the idea that it really was a Jackman vs. Reynolds prank the whole time.

 

[Arctish]

Oh, I don't think it was deliberate. They just overshot the mark.

I think the possible spike in Aviator Gin sales is entirely due to Ryan Reynolds seizing an opportunity to promote his gin in a funny, Deadpool-ish way. He's very good at that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, I don't think it was deliberate. They just overshot the mark.

I think the possible spike in Aviator Gin sales is entirely due to Ryan Reynolds seizing an opportunity to promote his gin in a funny, Deadpool-ish way. He's very good at that.

Aviator? I tried that a while back. Not bad, but still "just another gin" not really distinguishing itself.

I'll laugh at an advertisement, I guess, but I won't be buying it again. One bottle was enough.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh, I don't think it was deliberate. They just overshot the mark.

I, obviously, agree.

I think the possible spike in Aviator Gin sales is entirely due to Ryan Reynolds seizing an opportunity to promote his gin in a funny, Deadpool-ish way. He's very good at that.

Yep and if Peloton's marketing team is at all worth a damn, then to fix this mess they should hire Jackman to do exactly what I suggested above so that they can get on top of the narrative and make it seem like this was all Jackman pranking Reynolds to begin with.

I'd do something like a "leaked" video--very dark and suspect--an off-camera shoot of the original ad where you can just barely make out someone who looks like Jackman in the director's chair yelling "cut" or the like.

Then have Jackman deny it. And Reynolds respond. Etc. Have it escalate a bit and then have the CEO of Peloton step in before they throw fake blows and say, "No, no. Stop! We just screwed it up." Or something to that effect.