When is Enough, Enough?

Numbers. Numbers, numbers, numbers. Follow the money. Grab the market share. Polls. Participation. What does it all boil down to? Numbers. I'm an accountant in real life, so I know very well just how important numbers and accounting for those numbers are. Sports leagues care about viewership numbers because it means sponsorships and money. Subscription based services care about subscription numbers because it equates to users...and money. These businesses exist to make money, and making money means getting larger numbers of viewers, subscribers, participants, etc. But what lies behind these numbers are people. People to watch, to subscribe, to participate, to buy. So the numbers are important, but so are the people. Or at least, you would think they would be, right? But often, companies lose sight of the fact that real people are behind these figures.

Let's take a look at a particular segment of the population represented by numbers - women. According to the Harvard Business Review, women run the world economy. Indeed, according to Harvard Business Review, women control $20 trillion in annual consumer spending. $20 trillion dollars. In other words, we're a powerful segment of the economy and we control a lot of money. And yet, we are continually overlooked and or condescended to. Pink pens anyone? I mean, seriously, go shopping and see how the apparel industry continues to treat us. It's systemic of a larger issue, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the cycling community.

I'm sure you've seen them. Men riding around in lycra on slick bikes. If you're not a cyclist, you've probably cursed them out while passing them on the road (but seriously, not cool - don't do that). But think about how many of those times you've seen a woman riding. Not often, right? There really aren't a lot of women cyclists out there. They're there, for sure, but the numbers aren't nearly as great as the amount of male cyclists. So what does this mean? Well this means that the amount of women buying bicycles and participating in cycling events isn't as great. It's hard in the states to find coverage of male pro cycling events outside of the Tour de France (cycling just isn't that big in the States). It's next to impossible to find coverage of the women's pro cycling events. And why is that? The interest just isn't there. The number of viewers just doesn't warrant coverage. What it boils down to is basic economics - if there isn't a demand, there won't be a supply. And in the US, there simply isn't a large enough demand for women's pro cycling coverage.

But this isn't the only place we women cyclists are being told this. Take virtual racing. In the Zwift world, female participation equates to about 10% of the participation population. Since Zwift started, participation in general has grown. It's also grown for women as well. When Zwift Academy 2016 started they had roughly 1,100 participants. In 2017, that number almost doubled in growth to 2160 participants. It's not surprising that female participation on Zwift is growing. Zwift has become a popular training tool among cyclists and triathletes. It's so much more convenient for those that are strapped for time. Hop on your in-home trainer and get in a good workout. For women like me with kids and a career, it's a God-send. Zwift realizes this and is looking to gain more of that women market share. Which is a Good Idea. Besides the obvious of getting a bigger subscription base for Zwift, it also means that more women are participating in some form of cycling, and I don't think anyone can argue against this being good for cycling as a whole. More women racing and participating in cycling events is a great thing. But Zwift needs to be careful in putting the emphasis in just numbers of women participants and not forget the women that are behind their current numbers.

Lately, we, the women of Zwift, have been hearing that "there just aren't enough female participants". The numbers aren't good. They're "super low". Yes, you can't argue that compared to male participation, the female participation numbers are low. Recently, one of the reasons cited to scrap the Zwift e-Crit series was because women participation was too low (go here to read a great informational post on the e-Crit debacle). Zwift wanted to send the top 20 racers to a live racing event, but only had 15 women racers they could possibly send. So the e-Crit was scrapped for another event that would take place over 10 weeks. Now, to be fair, 2 of the best results would count for those that raced in the previous event. But it meant that people who had already reworked schedules and put in a lot of time and effort have to join ANOTHER event. It was an unfair move for both the female and male participants. But the emphasis on low women turnout burned, particularly for those that did show up.  See, the message there is that the results of the women's race don't matter if the numbers aren't "good". To be fair, perhaps that's not what Zwift meant to convey. Nevertheless, that's what the women's community heard. If we don't have the numbers, our races don't count. We also heard that at the Team World's event. A women's podium wasn't in the cards because of low women's team participation. So we're getting the message loud and clear - if men decide we don't have enough numbers of women participating, our races aren't worth scoring, they're not worth equal live coverage, they aren't worth equal rules, and perhaps they could be scrapped altogether.

But who gets to decide what numbers are enough? When will it ever be enough? Cycling is a male dominated sport, which means that the events are frequently run by men. Ergo, it's men that decide if our numbers are enough. And you know what? That's bullshit. And no, I can't find a more delicate or palatable way of saying it because it isn't a palatable situation. Women get a lot of placating talk of being supported in cycling. It's disingenuous to say that an organization or event honors or highlights women cycling if they're not going to take the event seriously or give it parity because the female participation numbers are too low. That's not the way you promote women cycling. What you do is you respect the time and effort put forth by those participants and you reward their efforts by caring about that "small" number. And when other women see that respect, they'll want to contribute. Good word of mouth goes a long way, and more women will join.  If you build it, they will come. But if women keep hearing that there aren't enough women, what will happen? Well, I'll tell you. They'll stay away. They'll be wary of competing in a small group, or of competing against other men. They'll wonder if it's worth their energy and commitment if no one else will honor that energy and commitment they will put forth. But if you show them that you care about THEM and not just the numbers they represent, they will show up. The proof is in the pudding. Zwift Academy 2016 had a lot of support and was very women cyclists friendly.  And what do you know - the following year, the participation doubled.  Take a look at CVR. The CVR World Cup events kept improving on their format and their treatment of women's virtual racing. At World Cup Paris, CVR offered an equal prize purse for ALL contestants.  This is unheard of in the industry. They did it and now women are all over participating in the new league. I predict they'll see a healthy number of women participants because CVR has proven they are truly committed to equality in women cycling.

We are enough. If it's one or 1,000 we are enough. We are more than a group of numbers that only matter once we reach a certain subjective threshold. If you want our numbers (and our dollars), you're going to need to treat even the smallest of us as if we are worthy participants.