A Culture in Flux
The State of Modern BMX
2017
The State of Modern BMX
2017
Issue#2: Identity Battles - The False War in BMX
by Mike Hinkens
August 13, 2017
August 13, 2017
Since the rebirth of BMX in the early 1990’s, this culture has prided itself on being in the hands of those who do it. The pillars of this incarnation of BMX have been: rider owned and operated bike companies and shops, rider created and controlled media, and rider designed and focused skateparks and competitions. That DIY rider-centric mentality is, in my opinion, what has allowed BMX to thrive and evolve into such a rich and meaningful culture. Paradoxically, those same strengths may be at the root of some of the problems many feel BMX culture is facing in 2017. Low sales and profits, the loss of major outside support, the shuttering of bike shops, skateparks, and brands, and the general disunity and discord amongst riders are all changes indicative of serious issues in the culture. On one hand, some shout that doomsday is upon us. Others, optimistic or in denial, claim that things are completely fine. And though BMX riders are still out there every day pushing the sport and living the lifestyle, many say that BMX culture and the industry that it supports are both changing dramatically and facing the direst of times. The conundrum is: We have maintained a large amount of control of our own destiny since the 90’s rebirth, yet here we are, facing a host of problems and challenges. If we have been in control for all of these years, how did we end up here? And, can’t we just right the ship? I believe that BMX can and will overcome the new challenges it faces, if not, simply because of the perseverance innate in those who ride BMX. Yet, we can do more to help this process along. As mentioned in the inaugural piece on imprimaturBMX.com this culture, like all complex social groups, deserves intelligent discourse in order to help it grow and evolve in positive and sustainable ways. In this series I plan to discuss some of the major changes and challenges that our BMX culture is facing and through a discussion of the complexities of those issues, propose some positive ideas about how we can better BMX as a whole.
BMX freestyle, despite its name, has become less and less accepting as more and more disagreements about style, technique, and character cause conflict amongst riders. These riders fight for ownership of the past and present essence of BMX. They brawl for the very soul of BMX. They endlessly debate the identity of this rich and diverse thing that impacts so many of us. (Go ahead and check this endnote for more than a few examples.)[I] That conflict is what I wish to address in this issue of Culture in Flux. At the heart of almost all subcultures is an identity that defines and distinguishes it, an identity that cements and strengthens the people within it, a guiding set of beliefs that helps it navigate the complex and changing world. Yet, where does that identity come from? What does it look like in the future? And most importantly, who answers those questions? These issues seem to be at the heart of the conflict and bitterness pervading much of BMX as of late. Yet, is identity the real issue? In this piece I will argue that identity issues are important, but they distract from the larger challenge of balancing the dual elements that comprise BMX culture itself: The Riders and The Industry.
As stated in the introductory page for this series (and shown in the endnotes below) many people feel there are significant problems in our culture. Instead of focusing on those problems, I want to go a bit deeper and ask: what isour “culture?” Let’s take a step back from the issue of identity and look at what I believe are the two main elements of BMX: The Riders and The Industry. For most of its existence, BMX culture has been defined and shaped by a constant push and pull between these two elements.
Some would argue that without The Industry, they would “still ride no matter what.” And for the most part, I believe that; but let’s step back and think of The Industry in the larger sense. Let’s look past the recklessly thrown around idea of “the fat guys sitting behind the desks who never ride anymore.” Let’s look at what The Industry actually does for us.
Functions of BMX Industry[ii]
BMX is—for many—defined by the act of doing, yet I would argue, even if the most hardcore Rider could keep BMX culture alive at some level without The Industry, function #1 itself is still absolutely vital to the survival of BMX culture and The Riders. With no products, we would be back to the years of modifying Schwinn Stingrays and breaking bike parts constantly. And I would also argue that all of the other functions of industry listed above—in one way or another—contribute to the support of function #1. In the end, BMX Riders are married to the Industry; but I am not here to argue that today. Rather, I am here to discuss the issue of identity in BMX and how it really is an issue about the two elements of BMX.
Back to the issue at hand: How have we gotten to a war about identity?
Presently, there is a general wave of discontent with The Industry as a whole. Internet comments, vlog rants, crew manifestos, iconic interviews, and the word on the street shows a low level of respect for media companies, brands, and the other institutions of BMX Industry. At almost any session, you can hear discussions about how these institutions are “wack,” “lame,” “disconnected,” and more (See footnote 1 again!). And often times those criticisms are followed by some sort of example such as the color of a product, or the music in a video, or a rider they support, or a style of riding they favor, or the advertising campaign they use, etc. In general, many Riders have shown little respect for or understanding of the challenges The Industry faces. Those challenges encompass a multitude of issues in a modern world of globalization, social media, and technological revolutions that often affect one of the main concerns of any of these institutions: changing and/or shrinking revenue streams. Simply put, there is no arguing that money is necessary for these institutions to survive and making that money is complex and challenging. Again, there seems to be an adversarial nature in the relationship between Riders and Industry. My definition above puts Industry in the position of working to harness BMX culture into something it can share, influence, and yes—sell. And though that may have a negative connotation, the reality is, we as consumers of BMX culture want and need them to do those things. How can we watch a DVD if some institution does not set a deadline and then make it? How can we maintain our bicycles if brands can’t sell us parts? How can we have events if infrastructure can’t be provided? How can we have any of these things if brands don’t get your attention by selling an image and getting usable revenue from your purchases?[iii] We need each other. Yet it is important to remember that there must be a balance. The freedom and looseness of the Rider side of all of this is often times offended by any attempt to apply rules, controls, or modern economic strategies. Riders decry lame advertising attempts. They degrade sponsored riders. Yet they forget that without those things The Industry cannot survive. On one hand, we cannot forget that not all actions taken by the institutions of BMX are bad. On the other hand, some are. And it is the lean towards those bad actions—such as ignoring and taking advantage of Riders or buying into advertising methods out-of-step with the majority of Riders—that shows the other way this balance can tilt.
Faced with tough realities Industry institutions are making tough decisions, yet Rider attitudes and voices are often critical—though uniformed—of almost any action taken by them. Instead of constructive support, you get internet flame wars, complaining, and bitching.[iv] Early on, riders recognized that one way to better balance these decisions was to take the helm of The Industry into their own hands. Many Riders have crossed over and bridged the gap to Industry. It is no longer run by CEO’s in boardrooms, mountain bike brands, and sporting goods stores. Riders have worked within The Industry to shape brands, products, events, media, and more. And its always evolving. New or reimagined brands and outlets continually pop up or change direction in order to contribute to—or survive in—BMX in one way or another. Yet many Riders don’t know or don’t care about this and mistakenly aim their discontent at these Industry institutions. Presently, the major issue is: The choices that institutions in The Industry make are examples of the Industry working on the Industry/Rider balance to adapt and grow within a changing world; yet many Riders, both young and old, inaccurately frame those adaptations, changes, and actions as certain types of choices. Choices about imagery, about style, about trends, and about identity. Not choices about running a business, adapting to the modern economy, and supporting a growing and changing culture. It is this incorrect framing that causes the conflict this piece began with: battles over the identity of BMX.
And when the argument is framed as being about identity, you start hearing—from kids on the web, from vloggers, and from crews—things like this:
Look at our crew/brand/etc.! Check out what BMX really is. We are cooler and smarter and more authentic. Do what we do and we can save BMX from itself and from its weird sell-out shit like vlogging, oil slick paint, etc.
It is this argument that shows the issue of identity and its mistaken place in BMX culture. Instead of seeing the issues BMX culture faces in the modern world as a manifestation of the global challenges the Industry/Rider duality faces, they see them as evidence of inauthentic and failing institutions of a BMX Industry that has lost touch and sold out. They see the institutions as lame because they cling to old styles or sell out to new trends.[v] And they believe that those institutions’ brand identities, their belief in one style of riding or another, or in a certain type of advertising campaign are all that defines them and also what damns them. Yet these actions, guided by identity, are not identity. They are much more complex that that. They are the methods that these institutions must use to survive and grow, and by default, for BMX culture to survive and grow.
And the crux of all of this is that these same people cast The Industry and its perceived disconnection or lameness or issues as an “identity.” Not as an element. The entire argument, the battle, the war—whatever—is based on the idea that Industry is an identity. That all the institutions, the magazines, the websites, the brands, are just a chosen identity ready to be shed; a set of images and ideas that can be deleted. And many believe that they can just use identity to redefine BMX culture as a whole and save it from itself. More concretely, some say the reason sales, or revenue, etc. are down is because:
No one likes the way Brand or Media Company X, Y, or Z does things. They portray BMX in a wack way and they support wack riders or events. They share wack media. But, if Our Brand does it different, and does it louder, it will thrive. It will push out the other brands. It will cleanse BMX of its wackness and that will lead to a stronger, better, and sustainable BMX culture.
The argument is that: BMX problems can be solved by crafting its identity (a new identity which destroys The Industry “identity” all together). Not by working to balance the reality of the dual-natured culture that exists. Many people ignore that dichotomy altogether and at the peril of our culture’s future. Industry is not an identity. It is an element of our culture. It cannot be outdone by a competing identity. It is necessary and it can only be improved upon and influenced so that it can survive in a way that is in line with an identity.
But before we can get to the overarching issue of the balance of the elements, we do need to remember, identity is real, and it’s a great guide for our culture. It is not all that defines us, but we need it.
So, let’s get to the question we started with: Who owns the BMX identity?
This is often framed as the main issue we are facing. Are we vloggers? Are we DIY trail riders? Are we mega-ramp trick weenies? Are we VX-toting alley lurkers? Make no mistake, identity is important. It helps serve as a guide. A guide for navigating the choices we make. Yet those choices, guided by an identity, are made within a framework that is here to stay, for better or for worse. That framework is one of balance between those pushing an agenda and those simply doing the act. We must answer the question, but also realize it is not the only question. It is the first question. Once we understand our identity, we can apply our beliefs to working on our balancing act. Just as DIY underground ethics guided our decisions in the 1990’s, now too our identity—which reveals our deeply held convictions—can help us re-align the balance between Industry and Riders in an ever-changing world.
Finally, let’s get down to identity and the question of who controls it.
Who owns the BMX identity?
Some ideas:
1. The Loudest
This seems to be the answer most people believe to be true. In our social media inundated world it seems that loudness is measured in numbers. You don’t need to shout; you just need a lot of subscribers or followers. And with an audience to be had, there is certainly no shortage of people speaking their minds about their particular version of BMX identity and working to share it with the most people possible[vi]. Increasingly, importance and credibility are tied to this web-based loudness. And many people are afraid that these loud voices will define BMX. After all, those loud voices seem to dominate most media that we consume. But simple loudness cannot be the answer. To win at the loudness game, you just need inundation and that usually comes with time, money, or a gimmick. Often, the more money/time an internet personality or institution has, the more likely they are able to do more and thus create more and thus get more views; in other words: to continue to be the loudest. And I can’t get behind the idea that one crew, brand, or media outlet gets to define BMX because of their loudness (AKA: numbers gained due to time, money, etc.). Our historical rebellion from organized sports and our insistence that BMX is a lifestyle,demands that we don’t define ourselves as one standardized organization of rule-following members. We have continually fought to be a freestyle community where creativity and style are prized over uniformity and codification. And that means there has to be more than a single loud voice or two. It also means that identity is not singular and a loud-mouthed group cannot sum up our entire culture. It over simplifies, leads to the misconceptions central to this piece, and frames the debate about BMX incorrectly and non-constructively.
2. Nobody
So if BMX is too open and free for it to be the loudest who controls our identity, then maybe its nobody. This is freestyle after all. Emphasis on free. If no one can make the rules for this extremely diverse culture, then no one can make the identity. In some ways, I like this idea. It is an idea that does not constrict, that does not discriminate, that does not give power or control to anybody. But on the other hand, it is an idea that does not set unified goals, does not work together for a common good, and does not really exist in the real world. A truly anarchic culture will become no culture at all. The very nature of culture is that it has shared beliefs and customs. And thus a shared interest. With no direction and no shared effort, one half of the reality of BMX cannot exist: The Industry. And then, as I have said above, with no Industry there can be no Riders. But we are getting closer to the answer. Multiple voices and freedom from constrictions, discrimination, and overbearing control are good things. So onto the third possibility.
3. Everybody
I know this sounds idealistic, obvious, and not much different from the first two answers, but bear with me. On one hand, there are lots of people clamoring to tell us all “what BMX is.” On the other hand, the core of freestyle demands that we don’t listen to anyone. If we look between these two ideas, maybe we can compromise and say: everybody owns BMX identity. That everybody gets to define BMX. And if everybody is entitled to it, that means it should encompass all people’s ideas about BMX, yet not one more than the other. And the forgotten truth is, there is room for all of us.[vii] We get so caught up in making Industry out to be an “identity” and then facing off as the “other identity” in opposition to it, that we all have begun to feel unnecessarily threatened. First of all, the Industry is not the “other.” It is an integral part of our culture. Secondly, the diversity of identities amongst the Rider side of BMX is not a conflict to be solved, but rather a strength and resource to be tapped. Let’s agree that everybody owns the identity of BMX because that means that we all get a voice. In addition, if we all own it, we all have a responsibility to worry about making our voice the best it can be when it is heard. When we all have ideas about BMX culture and we care about sharing them constructively—not making them dominant—we can come together as a unified yet diverse community. Then we can work on the issue of balancing the needs of The Industry with the lifestyle of Riders to build a mutually beneficial relationship. This is no easy task (see issue 1 of this series regarding methods of assimilating new ideas and working with other riders), but I can say that it all begins with realizing that there is room for all of us and our diverse identities. And knowing that positive inclusiveness and open dialogue will serve us better than compartmentalized pretentiousness and shit-talking.
In conclusion:
The conflicts so many BMXers see as presently tearing apart BMX culture are ones mistakenly framed as being about the identity of BMX. Yet that is a mistaken interpretation. Identity is important and guides us, yet other factors are at play. BMX culture is made up of two elements, both important and necessary to its survival: The Riders and The Industry. They are often in conflict and need to be balanced—since our beginnings. But we have cast Industry as a changeable and removable identity (not an element) and thus are battling our very nature. The real battle is about how to balance the two as guided by our identity. And that identity is contested. Though many believe BMX has one identity (namely a punk-rock, DIY one), that is only a portion of BMX and exists due to historical factors. That identity can still exist alongside many other ideas about BMX identity when we realize that our identities are all welcome and should all work together to better BMX. And we can do that by realizing we are not at war and that our diversities should be embraced and utilized to answer the bigger and long-lasting questions surrounding the balance between the two elements of BMX (Riders and Industry). These two elements are facing challenges, just not the ones many people are devoting time and energy to.
And now onto the bigger and more important question:
How can we use our identity, a shared and diverse one, to help guide us in balancing the twin elements of BMX culture in order to achieve stable and meaningful growth?
The answer is….
TO BE CONTINUED. Issue number 3 of the Culture in Flux series will discuss some more concrete ideas about how to adapt and grow BMX culture in these fast-changing times so that it can continue to grow and thrive in the future.
ENDNOTES:
[i]General perspectives on BMX and its direction, style, and overall identity:
-“The more popular side of BMX and street riding seems more an more alien to me as every year goes by. I can appreciate a lot of the things people do as it's technically very difficult, and I still love filming and producing work in that world, but on a personal level I still prefer a far more purist way of riding and more of a grass-roots approach to the culture behind it all. I liked the years when BMX was a more subversive pass-time than it is now. AM:PM, Flukelife, Doorstep, PDSI, Slack, Clarky's videos, Marv's videos, Newrick's videos, I love all that kind of stuff. I'm going to sound like an old man here but I can't be doing with commercial rap music, green claw logos, degrading internet comments...fuck it I'm not even going to get started.”– James Cox on DigBMX- http://digbmx.com/dig-this/james-cox-tattoos-bmx-frame-stickers
- “What do you think about the current state of street riding? --
Uh, I don’t want to be mean. It’s progressive, there’s definitely stuff going on, stuff happening. But to me it’s all the same stuff going on.” – Seth Kimbrough on DigBMX - http://digbmx.com/dig-this/seth-kimbrough-the-current-state
- “Was BMX better back in the mid-school era? Print was thriving, videos showed more of the fun side of BMX, the web was ‘emerging’ and you could land with your foot off the pedal and still have it counted (even if your name is Joe Rich). Social media hadn’t formed enough of a bubble to completely engulf us and FBM were happily proving that fire, beer and BMX were simply meant to be.” – Joey Spinoza on DigBMX - http://digbmx.com/dig-this/30-signs-that-you-were-a-mid-school-bmxer
- “The video was made over the last three and a half years. Is it nice not being involved with the riding ‘industry’ and having ‘deadlines’ and stuff? And do you think some things are too rushed? --
I was never too involved in the actual industry, I was just heavily involved in a company. But to answer your question it feels great to be away from that, especially right now. What my old job turned in to is just an embarrassment to the culture.” – Bob Scerbo on The Central Library-
https://blog.thecentrallibrary.com/2017/07/24/interview-bob-scerbo-2/
- “Sticking with this whole ten year thing, how has BMX changed in the last ten years?
Well, unsurprisingly, it’s changed at a pretty close parallel to cultural zeitgeists in general. The fashion is obvious. The need to have every second of what you do broadcast (vlogs, I’m looking at you) and that goes along with the sense of instant gratification. Instead of saving an insane banger that would excel in a well-edited video section or even “web edit,” it’s more valuable to put out the raw clip to gain notoriety. Not that I’m even really opposed to the evolution, but one can’t help but miss the beer thrash sloppy hesh stunt bodybaggin VHS good ‘ol days.”– Kyle Hart on RideBMX - http://bmx.transworld.net/1/words-kyle-hart-interview/
[ii]More on this in the next piece!
[iii]DIY versions of much of this already exist and have an important place in our culture, yet those cannot and should not be our only sources of cultural depth and growth.
[iv]See the statements above regarding the “nature” of modern BMX, as well as look at the drama that plays out on social media and industry sites regarding brand/rider actions/choices/philosophies. Examples below:
- Adam LZ and Stranger:
http://thecomeup.com/news/augie-simoncini-off-stranger/
http://thecomeup.com/videos/adam-lz-off-stranger/
- Spencer Foresman and Harry Main:
http://bmx.transworld.net//videos/lifestyle/spencer-foresman-got-sponsored/
http://bmx.transworld.net/videos/lifestyle/spencer-foresman-apologizes/
- DIG BMX Rebirth:
http://digbmx.com/videos/dig-believe-belong
[v]Just one example of the idea that different styles and methods are synonymous with a downfall of BMX culture as a whole and that personal preference of one person makes other styles wrong:
“Riding is supposed to be pleasure, not always fun, but done for pleasure. That whole ‘trying to make it’ shit sucks and in turn it makes a lot of videos suck as well. I like videos that document riding, not projects that try and produce content to compete with other produced content… Also I don’t watch videos where ever clip has multiple cameras cutting back and forth all the time. It gives me anxiety. I also like when moving footage is done on a bike. Carrying a skateboard on your back to film bike riding is possibly the worst thing to ever happen to filming BMX.”– Bob Scerbo on The Central Library-
https://blog.thecentrallibrary.com/2017/07/24/interview-bob-scerbo-2/
[vi]There are a multitude of competing voices in BMX who often lay claim to understanding what “BMX is all about.” Various and diverse examples:
[vii]I am reusing this source because it does a great job summing up the idea of there being room in BMX for everybody: “I do know that I hate ‘kids these days’ rants and comments on these Instagram accounts from the mid school like ‘so and so rode like a man’, or ‘knew what he was doing’. That stuff is just so annoying. People don’t have to like every aspect of BMX and no one is going to come after your prized tabletop.” -- https://thefancyisland.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/interview-nick-ferreira/
As stated in the introductory page for this series (and shown in the endnotes below) many people feel there are significant problems in our culture. Instead of focusing on those problems, I want to go a bit deeper and ask: what isour “culture?” Let’s take a step back from the issue of identity and look at what I believe are the two main elements of BMX: The Riders and The Industry. For most of its existence, BMX culture has been defined and shaped by a constant push and pull between these two elements.
- Riders: The all-inclusive conglomeration of people who actually ride BMX bikes. This is the whole of who rides in the world (street, trails, ramp, flat, contests, etc.). This includes all who actually do the activity, yet is seen as an open and free organization bound by almost no other thing than riding a twenty-inch bicycle. Those in The Industry can also be Riders, yet the Industry itself is more than just the people who make it up.
- Industry: The institutions in BMX culture that serve to push agendas. Those institutions and agendas include BMX brands who sell products and images, media companies who select and share content, shops and mail-orders that sell products and provide services, crews that share their work and style, and many others.
Some would argue that without The Industry, they would “still ride no matter what.” And for the most part, I believe that; but let’s step back and think of The Industry in the larger sense. Let’s look past the recklessly thrown around idea of “the fat guys sitting behind the desks who never ride anymore.” Let’s look at what The Industry actually does for us.
Functions of BMX Industry[ii]
- Create products (bikes, parts, clothing, tools)
- Create/Propagate Media (videos, magazines, etc.)
- Fund Riders (paychecks, travel, entrance fees)
- Host Events (contests, jams, trade shows)
- Advocate (help build skateparks, expose BMX to the outside world)
- Maintain Cohesion (serve as guide for culture – the debate lies here!)
BMX is—for many—defined by the act of doing, yet I would argue, even if the most hardcore Rider could keep BMX culture alive at some level without The Industry, function #1 itself is still absolutely vital to the survival of BMX culture and The Riders. With no products, we would be back to the years of modifying Schwinn Stingrays and breaking bike parts constantly. And I would also argue that all of the other functions of industry listed above—in one way or another—contribute to the support of function #1. In the end, BMX Riders are married to the Industry; but I am not here to argue that today. Rather, I am here to discuss the issue of identity in BMX and how it really is an issue about the two elements of BMX.
Back to the issue at hand: How have we gotten to a war about identity?
Presently, there is a general wave of discontent with The Industry as a whole. Internet comments, vlog rants, crew manifestos, iconic interviews, and the word on the street shows a low level of respect for media companies, brands, and the other institutions of BMX Industry. At almost any session, you can hear discussions about how these institutions are “wack,” “lame,” “disconnected,” and more (See footnote 1 again!). And often times those criticisms are followed by some sort of example such as the color of a product, or the music in a video, or a rider they support, or a style of riding they favor, or the advertising campaign they use, etc. In general, many Riders have shown little respect for or understanding of the challenges The Industry faces. Those challenges encompass a multitude of issues in a modern world of globalization, social media, and technological revolutions that often affect one of the main concerns of any of these institutions: changing and/or shrinking revenue streams. Simply put, there is no arguing that money is necessary for these institutions to survive and making that money is complex and challenging. Again, there seems to be an adversarial nature in the relationship between Riders and Industry. My definition above puts Industry in the position of working to harness BMX culture into something it can share, influence, and yes—sell. And though that may have a negative connotation, the reality is, we as consumers of BMX culture want and need them to do those things. How can we watch a DVD if some institution does not set a deadline and then make it? How can we maintain our bicycles if brands can’t sell us parts? How can we have events if infrastructure can’t be provided? How can we have any of these things if brands don’t get your attention by selling an image and getting usable revenue from your purchases?[iii] We need each other. Yet it is important to remember that there must be a balance. The freedom and looseness of the Rider side of all of this is often times offended by any attempt to apply rules, controls, or modern economic strategies. Riders decry lame advertising attempts. They degrade sponsored riders. Yet they forget that without those things The Industry cannot survive. On one hand, we cannot forget that not all actions taken by the institutions of BMX are bad. On the other hand, some are. And it is the lean towards those bad actions—such as ignoring and taking advantage of Riders or buying into advertising methods out-of-step with the majority of Riders—that shows the other way this balance can tilt.
Faced with tough realities Industry institutions are making tough decisions, yet Rider attitudes and voices are often critical—though uniformed—of almost any action taken by them. Instead of constructive support, you get internet flame wars, complaining, and bitching.[iv] Early on, riders recognized that one way to better balance these decisions was to take the helm of The Industry into their own hands. Many Riders have crossed over and bridged the gap to Industry. It is no longer run by CEO’s in boardrooms, mountain bike brands, and sporting goods stores. Riders have worked within The Industry to shape brands, products, events, media, and more. And its always evolving. New or reimagined brands and outlets continually pop up or change direction in order to contribute to—or survive in—BMX in one way or another. Yet many Riders don’t know or don’t care about this and mistakenly aim their discontent at these Industry institutions. Presently, the major issue is: The choices that institutions in The Industry make are examples of the Industry working on the Industry/Rider balance to adapt and grow within a changing world; yet many Riders, both young and old, inaccurately frame those adaptations, changes, and actions as certain types of choices. Choices about imagery, about style, about trends, and about identity. Not choices about running a business, adapting to the modern economy, and supporting a growing and changing culture. It is this incorrect framing that causes the conflict this piece began with: battles over the identity of BMX.
And when the argument is framed as being about identity, you start hearing—from kids on the web, from vloggers, and from crews—things like this:
Look at our crew/brand/etc.! Check out what BMX really is. We are cooler and smarter and more authentic. Do what we do and we can save BMX from itself and from its weird sell-out shit like vlogging, oil slick paint, etc.
It is this argument that shows the issue of identity and its mistaken place in BMX culture. Instead of seeing the issues BMX culture faces in the modern world as a manifestation of the global challenges the Industry/Rider duality faces, they see them as evidence of inauthentic and failing institutions of a BMX Industry that has lost touch and sold out. They see the institutions as lame because they cling to old styles or sell out to new trends.[v] And they believe that those institutions’ brand identities, their belief in one style of riding or another, or in a certain type of advertising campaign are all that defines them and also what damns them. Yet these actions, guided by identity, are not identity. They are much more complex that that. They are the methods that these institutions must use to survive and grow, and by default, for BMX culture to survive and grow.
And the crux of all of this is that these same people cast The Industry and its perceived disconnection or lameness or issues as an “identity.” Not as an element. The entire argument, the battle, the war—whatever—is based on the idea that Industry is an identity. That all the institutions, the magazines, the websites, the brands, are just a chosen identity ready to be shed; a set of images and ideas that can be deleted. And many believe that they can just use identity to redefine BMX culture as a whole and save it from itself. More concretely, some say the reason sales, or revenue, etc. are down is because:
No one likes the way Brand or Media Company X, Y, or Z does things. They portray BMX in a wack way and they support wack riders or events. They share wack media. But, if Our Brand does it different, and does it louder, it will thrive. It will push out the other brands. It will cleanse BMX of its wackness and that will lead to a stronger, better, and sustainable BMX culture.
The argument is that: BMX problems can be solved by crafting its identity (a new identity which destroys The Industry “identity” all together). Not by working to balance the reality of the dual-natured culture that exists. Many people ignore that dichotomy altogether and at the peril of our culture’s future. Industry is not an identity. It is an element of our culture. It cannot be outdone by a competing identity. It is necessary and it can only be improved upon and influenced so that it can survive in a way that is in line with an identity.
But before we can get to the overarching issue of the balance of the elements, we do need to remember, identity is real, and it’s a great guide for our culture. It is not all that defines us, but we need it.
So, let’s get to the question we started with: Who owns the BMX identity?
This is often framed as the main issue we are facing. Are we vloggers? Are we DIY trail riders? Are we mega-ramp trick weenies? Are we VX-toting alley lurkers? Make no mistake, identity is important. It helps serve as a guide. A guide for navigating the choices we make. Yet those choices, guided by an identity, are made within a framework that is here to stay, for better or for worse. That framework is one of balance between those pushing an agenda and those simply doing the act. We must answer the question, but also realize it is not the only question. It is the first question. Once we understand our identity, we can apply our beliefs to working on our balancing act. Just as DIY underground ethics guided our decisions in the 1990’s, now too our identity—which reveals our deeply held convictions—can help us re-align the balance between Industry and Riders in an ever-changing world.
Finally, let’s get down to identity and the question of who controls it.
Who owns the BMX identity?
Some ideas:
1. The Loudest
This seems to be the answer most people believe to be true. In our social media inundated world it seems that loudness is measured in numbers. You don’t need to shout; you just need a lot of subscribers or followers. And with an audience to be had, there is certainly no shortage of people speaking their minds about their particular version of BMX identity and working to share it with the most people possible[vi]. Increasingly, importance and credibility are tied to this web-based loudness. And many people are afraid that these loud voices will define BMX. After all, those loud voices seem to dominate most media that we consume. But simple loudness cannot be the answer. To win at the loudness game, you just need inundation and that usually comes with time, money, or a gimmick. Often, the more money/time an internet personality or institution has, the more likely they are able to do more and thus create more and thus get more views; in other words: to continue to be the loudest. And I can’t get behind the idea that one crew, brand, or media outlet gets to define BMX because of their loudness (AKA: numbers gained due to time, money, etc.). Our historical rebellion from organized sports and our insistence that BMX is a lifestyle,demands that we don’t define ourselves as one standardized organization of rule-following members. We have continually fought to be a freestyle community where creativity and style are prized over uniformity and codification. And that means there has to be more than a single loud voice or two. It also means that identity is not singular and a loud-mouthed group cannot sum up our entire culture. It over simplifies, leads to the misconceptions central to this piece, and frames the debate about BMX incorrectly and non-constructively.
2. Nobody
So if BMX is too open and free for it to be the loudest who controls our identity, then maybe its nobody. This is freestyle after all. Emphasis on free. If no one can make the rules for this extremely diverse culture, then no one can make the identity. In some ways, I like this idea. It is an idea that does not constrict, that does not discriminate, that does not give power or control to anybody. But on the other hand, it is an idea that does not set unified goals, does not work together for a common good, and does not really exist in the real world. A truly anarchic culture will become no culture at all. The very nature of culture is that it has shared beliefs and customs. And thus a shared interest. With no direction and no shared effort, one half of the reality of BMX cannot exist: The Industry. And then, as I have said above, with no Industry there can be no Riders. But we are getting closer to the answer. Multiple voices and freedom from constrictions, discrimination, and overbearing control are good things. So onto the third possibility.
3. Everybody
I know this sounds idealistic, obvious, and not much different from the first two answers, but bear with me. On one hand, there are lots of people clamoring to tell us all “what BMX is.” On the other hand, the core of freestyle demands that we don’t listen to anyone. If we look between these two ideas, maybe we can compromise and say: everybody owns BMX identity. That everybody gets to define BMX. And if everybody is entitled to it, that means it should encompass all people’s ideas about BMX, yet not one more than the other. And the forgotten truth is, there is room for all of us.[vii] We get so caught up in making Industry out to be an “identity” and then facing off as the “other identity” in opposition to it, that we all have begun to feel unnecessarily threatened. First of all, the Industry is not the “other.” It is an integral part of our culture. Secondly, the diversity of identities amongst the Rider side of BMX is not a conflict to be solved, but rather a strength and resource to be tapped. Let’s agree that everybody owns the identity of BMX because that means that we all get a voice. In addition, if we all own it, we all have a responsibility to worry about making our voice the best it can be when it is heard. When we all have ideas about BMX culture and we care about sharing them constructively—not making them dominant—we can come together as a unified yet diverse community. Then we can work on the issue of balancing the needs of The Industry with the lifestyle of Riders to build a mutually beneficial relationship. This is no easy task (see issue 1 of this series regarding methods of assimilating new ideas and working with other riders), but I can say that it all begins with realizing that there is room for all of us and our diverse identities. And knowing that positive inclusiveness and open dialogue will serve us better than compartmentalized pretentiousness and shit-talking.
In conclusion:
The conflicts so many BMXers see as presently tearing apart BMX culture are ones mistakenly framed as being about the identity of BMX. Yet that is a mistaken interpretation. Identity is important and guides us, yet other factors are at play. BMX culture is made up of two elements, both important and necessary to its survival: The Riders and The Industry. They are often in conflict and need to be balanced—since our beginnings. But we have cast Industry as a changeable and removable identity (not an element) and thus are battling our very nature. The real battle is about how to balance the two as guided by our identity. And that identity is contested. Though many believe BMX has one identity (namely a punk-rock, DIY one), that is only a portion of BMX and exists due to historical factors. That identity can still exist alongside many other ideas about BMX identity when we realize that our identities are all welcome and should all work together to better BMX. And we can do that by realizing we are not at war and that our diversities should be embraced and utilized to answer the bigger and long-lasting questions surrounding the balance between the two elements of BMX (Riders and Industry). These two elements are facing challenges, just not the ones many people are devoting time and energy to.
And now onto the bigger and more important question:
How can we use our identity, a shared and diverse one, to help guide us in balancing the twin elements of BMX culture in order to achieve stable and meaningful growth?
The answer is….
TO BE CONTINUED. Issue number 3 of the Culture in Flux series will discuss some more concrete ideas about how to adapt and grow BMX culture in these fast-changing times so that it can continue to grow and thrive in the future.
ENDNOTES:
[i]General perspectives on BMX and its direction, style, and overall identity:
-“The more popular side of BMX and street riding seems more an more alien to me as every year goes by. I can appreciate a lot of the things people do as it's technically very difficult, and I still love filming and producing work in that world, but on a personal level I still prefer a far more purist way of riding and more of a grass-roots approach to the culture behind it all. I liked the years when BMX was a more subversive pass-time than it is now. AM:PM, Flukelife, Doorstep, PDSI, Slack, Clarky's videos, Marv's videos, Newrick's videos, I love all that kind of stuff. I'm going to sound like an old man here but I can't be doing with commercial rap music, green claw logos, degrading internet comments...fuck it I'm not even going to get started.”– James Cox on DigBMX- http://digbmx.com/dig-this/james-cox-tattoos-bmx-frame-stickers
- “What do you think about the current state of street riding? --
Uh, I don’t want to be mean. It’s progressive, there’s definitely stuff going on, stuff happening. But to me it’s all the same stuff going on.” – Seth Kimbrough on DigBMX - http://digbmx.com/dig-this/seth-kimbrough-the-current-state
- “Was BMX better back in the mid-school era? Print was thriving, videos showed more of the fun side of BMX, the web was ‘emerging’ and you could land with your foot off the pedal and still have it counted (even if your name is Joe Rich). Social media hadn’t formed enough of a bubble to completely engulf us and FBM were happily proving that fire, beer and BMX were simply meant to be.” – Joey Spinoza on DigBMX - http://digbmx.com/dig-this/30-signs-that-you-were-a-mid-school-bmxer
- “The video was made over the last three and a half years. Is it nice not being involved with the riding ‘industry’ and having ‘deadlines’ and stuff? And do you think some things are too rushed? --
I was never too involved in the actual industry, I was just heavily involved in a company. But to answer your question it feels great to be away from that, especially right now. What my old job turned in to is just an embarrassment to the culture.” – Bob Scerbo on The Central Library-
https://blog.thecentrallibrary.com/2017/07/24/interview-bob-scerbo-2/
- “Sticking with this whole ten year thing, how has BMX changed in the last ten years?
Well, unsurprisingly, it’s changed at a pretty close parallel to cultural zeitgeists in general. The fashion is obvious. The need to have every second of what you do broadcast (vlogs, I’m looking at you) and that goes along with the sense of instant gratification. Instead of saving an insane banger that would excel in a well-edited video section or even “web edit,” it’s more valuable to put out the raw clip to gain notoriety. Not that I’m even really opposed to the evolution, but one can’t help but miss the beer thrash sloppy hesh stunt bodybaggin VHS good ‘ol days.”– Kyle Hart on RideBMX - http://bmx.transworld.net/1/words-kyle-hart-interview/
[ii]More on this in the next piece!
[iii]DIY versions of much of this already exist and have an important place in our culture, yet those cannot and should not be our only sources of cultural depth and growth.
[iv]See the statements above regarding the “nature” of modern BMX, as well as look at the drama that plays out on social media and industry sites regarding brand/rider actions/choices/philosophies. Examples below:
- Adam LZ and Stranger:
http://thecomeup.com/news/augie-simoncini-off-stranger/
http://thecomeup.com/videos/adam-lz-off-stranger/
- Spencer Foresman and Harry Main:
http://bmx.transworld.net//videos/lifestyle/spencer-foresman-got-sponsored/
http://bmx.transworld.net/videos/lifestyle/spencer-foresman-apologizes/
- DIG BMX Rebirth:
http://digbmx.com/videos/dig-believe-belong
[v]Just one example of the idea that different styles and methods are synonymous with a downfall of BMX culture as a whole and that personal preference of one person makes other styles wrong:
“Riding is supposed to be pleasure, not always fun, but done for pleasure. That whole ‘trying to make it’ shit sucks and in turn it makes a lot of videos suck as well. I like videos that document riding, not projects that try and produce content to compete with other produced content… Also I don’t watch videos where ever clip has multiple cameras cutting back and forth all the time. It gives me anxiety. I also like when moving footage is done on a bike. Carrying a skateboard on your back to film bike riding is possibly the worst thing to ever happen to filming BMX.”– Bob Scerbo on The Central Library-
https://blog.thecentrallibrary.com/2017/07/24/interview-bob-scerbo-2/
[vi]There are a multitude of competing voices in BMX who often lay claim to understanding what “BMX is all about.” Various and diverse examples:
- Myself:www.imprimaturbmx.com
- Famous BMX riders/Personalities:
- Harry Main http://www.vitalbmx.com/features/Harry-Main-Explains,5727
- Adam 22 http://thecomeup.com/videos/webisode-22-the-adam22-question-answer-session/
- Austin Augie: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzRjzjxudb_BDbUlto8vHXg - Crews:
- The Common Crew http://thecomeup.com/videos/the-common-crew-video-interview/
- Act Like You Know: http://www.alykcru.com - Brands:
- FBM: www.fbmbmx.com
- Tall Order BMX: http://tallorderbmx.com
[vii]I am reusing this source because it does a great job summing up the idea of there being room in BMX for everybody: “I do know that I hate ‘kids these days’ rants and comments on these Instagram accounts from the mid school like ‘so and so rode like a man’, or ‘knew what he was doing’. That stuff is just so annoying. People don’t have to like every aspect of BMX and no one is going to come after your prized tabletop.” -- https://thefancyisland.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/interview-nick-ferreira/
Responses
|
Below are comments left on a Facebook post promoting this article. It has been moved here to keep the discussion going in archivable and easily accessible location.
--------- Originally posted on Facebook by Devin Feil on August 13, 2017 I enjoyed the article but I feel you missed on a few points: 1. As long as I can remember there have always been factions in BMX which didn't like how others were doing it. But in the past there weren't so many outlets to express your disdain. Magazines weren't exactly interviewing guys about why other brands sucked, cause at times some of those other brands advertised in the magazine. This is hardly a new development in BMX, or skateboarding or any comparable activity/lifestyle/sport. 2. You make it sound like it's inherently wrong to call out bullshit in the industry. Sure I don't agree with bashing other disciplines of riding. Let people ride how they'd like. I've never been a trails guy, but have a huge respect for what they do. I think mega ramp and the ramp riders who sling a million barspin/tailwhips are hideous, but I don't think it's bad for BMX, and those guys are just doing what they like to do. I think a lot more commentary on the culture as of late has been on things that really were major sellout moves. An entity like TCU building up it's fan base as a core street site, knocking Vital for being "corny" and then flipping around and releasing crash videos and utilizing weed as a marketing tool to draw in impressionable kids, is worth calling out. And these influencers do effect what kids think is cool, and they emulate that shit. Sorry I don't want BMX to be Scarred meets High Times. Sure some decisions need to be made for the sake of profitability. You can't just rely on dated business models that no longer work, but you won't ever convince me that quality doesn't have a place still, and everything needs to be aimed for maximum popularity. 3. And this one is probably most important. You didn't address that other comparable industries, skate, snowboard, etc. are experiencing the same decline over the last decade in participation/sales. That's really the conversation that needs to be had. And I am sure someone will comment that skate still kills it, but I'll happily link to articles from industry people noting quite the contrary. There has been a ton of deck brands, and shoe companies which have disappeared in the last few years in skate too, clear indication the money isn't there like it once was. Anyways... what are these kids doing? Why are they not getting into BMX or skate anymore. I think they just play more video games. Those are more popular than ever. And I also think there is just a shift in ratio of participants to spectators. A lot of people live vicariously through YouTube, which is just an evolution of reality television. And my last guess as to a factor, is that organized sports saw that maybe the overbearing parents and too serious attitude was out of hand, and they've made those sports more enticing again so kids are playing traditional sports instead. Plus does BMX or skate really have the counter culture identity it once held? The identity that drew so many of us to it, as an antithesis to organized sports. |
Original Post:
|
August 16th, 2017 - Response to above topics raised by Devin Feil - Mike Hinkens
---------------------
1. Agreed. I think that in the social media inundated world in which we live, there is a magnification factor that makes things seem more extreme and worse than ever before. On one hand, note that I say “seem.” As you said and I agree, BMX is a factious culture and that is its strength in some ways (see my argument about diversity!). Yet, in this modern culture, the magnification is not without harm. As with mainstream politics, the magnification of factions has a tendency to pit them against each other more than ever before. And instead of a unified culture with differences, we seem to be a culture splitting into factions and defining ourselves as on one side or another. Again, mirroring US national politics, the country and our culture feels more divided now than ever. And, learning a little from what is happening outside of our bubble, it seems important to shed light on and work to create a place and an understanding between the many factions that are solidifying. Hence the creation of ImprimaturBMX. The calcification of these factions into crews, brands, and companies who support and push for styles and attitudes that are exclusionary are both a reaction to the polarized environment we live in and a contributor to that environment. What I think you may see as me criticizing dissent, is rather me pointing out that people are disagreeing in more forceful and aggressive ways. And as you say, there are more outlets for that now than ever before. Social media platforms allow any old person more reach now than some of the most famous people a generation ago. And with that easily accessible reach, many voices are speaking and can be heard. Though this is the nature of democracy and the freedom of speech, without the filter of Industry, for better or for worse, the noise is almost unbearable. As mentioned in this piece and in issue 1 of the CIF series, everyone has an agenda and everyone can push it more easily now. Sadly without concerted effort, the chaos will continue to breed more factions. In the end, it is my hope that we can rein in the factious nature of BMX and use it to aim us in a positive direction. For my part, that is why I continue to push for exchanges of ideas that are well-thought out and filtered, yet Facebook and online comments continually drown that out. We should be discussing these issues (as they have always existed), but we need to be more aware that if we don’t discuss them, other’s will have the floor to themselves and be able to steer the ship wherever they want.
2. Again, totally agree. That is what this is all about. I am working to find a sane voice to draw other sane voices together. And together I hope they can spread the message that we do need to guide BMX in a positive way and to call out the bullshit. In this piece, I am not arguing that people should not “call out” lame, sell-out moves, but rather arguing for a constructive way of doing so. When we call people out for shallow things, the arguments never reach the true issue. If certain websites are run by less-than-honest people, we need to make sure we work to change that, not just condemn it. I know that you are a major proponent of that. And though I disagree with your medium (Facebook), I agree with your message. Sadly, when messages are pushed out with anger or in haste (not your’s specifically, but rather generally), they end up taking on a life of their own. The Anti-TCU movement picked up some steam, but was often framed regarding their style, their music, their image. You and others raised real issues about their business practices, but, the average rider just saw it as pro- or anti-TCU, and picked a side based on their favorite style of riding, favorite rider, or favorite brand of bike. I believe that the issues below the surface, the ones you have raised, are more important than the shallow issues that ended up being debated. Yet, Facebook comment sections seem only to build up certain things: 1. The “hell yeah” section. 2. The hijacking of your beef and making it about their own personal beef. 3. Or the “Shut up, and move on” section. NONE of these are constructive. And when the conversation descends into those things, people think that they have solved the problem, when in reality, there was no true attempt at reaching any consensus about the real issues. And then, people cannot come up with a realistic plan. If TCU needs to be pushed out of BMX (your example), then a real plan is needed. A Facebook call out for a boycott is not a realistic way of doing so. Brands and other parts of the industry have complex webs of politics based of advertising, sales, relationships, etc, that cannot just see the industry in black and white. Yet, that is just an example and relevant to your specific example. The bigger take away is that constructive discussion can move past the general and superficial and work for real solutions. Maybe the solution to your example is pushing other outlets, or starting a new one, or etc…. My argument is that “calling out” is not enough. And though its loud, its all bark and no bite. Real concrete discussions that breed plans for long-term change are what will truly help BMX culture. Again, I believe we have a duty to “call out” The Industry and if I did not argue that in the original piece, then I missed the mark. I just want to make sure we do so in constructive ways. In the social media echo chamber, we end up hearing what we want to hear or just polarizing the culture more. In issue 3 (upcoming), I hope to offer some concrete ways I believe we can call Riders and The Industry institutions out, push for a change, and help grow BMX how we want it to be. I would love feedback from you and others regarding how you believe we can properly “call out” people and institutions and work to guide BMX in a positive, inclusive, and awesome way.
3. Please help me! This comment addresses at least 3 other full-sized topics, a few of which are on my to-do list. The honest answer is that I do not know enough about some of these and have yet to tackle them. It would be incredible if someone with knowledge about these (hint) would write pieces about them. In short, I think it is extremely important to discuss our neighboring cultures as they have years more experience than us and we could definitely learn from them. In addition, the active lifestyle that BMX demands and the self-motivation it requires are certainly barriers to its growth in this modern era of technology and screen-time activities. Finally, in some ways we MUST grow if we are going to survive and understanding all of the factors that you mentioned can only help us do that.
All of your points serve as examples of why these discussions are so important. Knowledge is power, and humans have survived and prospered for so long due to their self-awareness and introspective nature. BMX culture is simply a microcosm of larger human culture and we too must examine ourselves in order to move forward, grow, and survive in general. We need to ask the questions. We need to debate the answers. And we need to look beyond “just riding” to the culture of BMX. And this is only possible if we study ourselves and the world around us. Thank you very much for your commentary and I hope to hear from you more as a response to this or in your own works.
- Mike
---------------------
1. Agreed. I think that in the social media inundated world in which we live, there is a magnification factor that makes things seem more extreme and worse than ever before. On one hand, note that I say “seem.” As you said and I agree, BMX is a factious culture and that is its strength in some ways (see my argument about diversity!). Yet, in this modern culture, the magnification is not without harm. As with mainstream politics, the magnification of factions has a tendency to pit them against each other more than ever before. And instead of a unified culture with differences, we seem to be a culture splitting into factions and defining ourselves as on one side or another. Again, mirroring US national politics, the country and our culture feels more divided now than ever. And, learning a little from what is happening outside of our bubble, it seems important to shed light on and work to create a place and an understanding between the many factions that are solidifying. Hence the creation of ImprimaturBMX. The calcification of these factions into crews, brands, and companies who support and push for styles and attitudes that are exclusionary are both a reaction to the polarized environment we live in and a contributor to that environment. What I think you may see as me criticizing dissent, is rather me pointing out that people are disagreeing in more forceful and aggressive ways. And as you say, there are more outlets for that now than ever before. Social media platforms allow any old person more reach now than some of the most famous people a generation ago. And with that easily accessible reach, many voices are speaking and can be heard. Though this is the nature of democracy and the freedom of speech, without the filter of Industry, for better or for worse, the noise is almost unbearable. As mentioned in this piece and in issue 1 of the CIF series, everyone has an agenda and everyone can push it more easily now. Sadly without concerted effort, the chaos will continue to breed more factions. In the end, it is my hope that we can rein in the factious nature of BMX and use it to aim us in a positive direction. For my part, that is why I continue to push for exchanges of ideas that are well-thought out and filtered, yet Facebook and online comments continually drown that out. We should be discussing these issues (as they have always existed), but we need to be more aware that if we don’t discuss them, other’s will have the floor to themselves and be able to steer the ship wherever they want.
2. Again, totally agree. That is what this is all about. I am working to find a sane voice to draw other sane voices together. And together I hope they can spread the message that we do need to guide BMX in a positive way and to call out the bullshit. In this piece, I am not arguing that people should not “call out” lame, sell-out moves, but rather arguing for a constructive way of doing so. When we call people out for shallow things, the arguments never reach the true issue. If certain websites are run by less-than-honest people, we need to make sure we work to change that, not just condemn it. I know that you are a major proponent of that. And though I disagree with your medium (Facebook), I agree with your message. Sadly, when messages are pushed out with anger or in haste (not your’s specifically, but rather generally), they end up taking on a life of their own. The Anti-TCU movement picked up some steam, but was often framed regarding their style, their music, their image. You and others raised real issues about their business practices, but, the average rider just saw it as pro- or anti-TCU, and picked a side based on their favorite style of riding, favorite rider, or favorite brand of bike. I believe that the issues below the surface, the ones you have raised, are more important than the shallow issues that ended up being debated. Yet, Facebook comment sections seem only to build up certain things: 1. The “hell yeah” section. 2. The hijacking of your beef and making it about their own personal beef. 3. Or the “Shut up, and move on” section. NONE of these are constructive. And when the conversation descends into those things, people think that they have solved the problem, when in reality, there was no true attempt at reaching any consensus about the real issues. And then, people cannot come up with a realistic plan. If TCU needs to be pushed out of BMX (your example), then a real plan is needed. A Facebook call out for a boycott is not a realistic way of doing so. Brands and other parts of the industry have complex webs of politics based of advertising, sales, relationships, etc, that cannot just see the industry in black and white. Yet, that is just an example and relevant to your specific example. The bigger take away is that constructive discussion can move past the general and superficial and work for real solutions. Maybe the solution to your example is pushing other outlets, or starting a new one, or etc…. My argument is that “calling out” is not enough. And though its loud, its all bark and no bite. Real concrete discussions that breed plans for long-term change are what will truly help BMX culture. Again, I believe we have a duty to “call out” The Industry and if I did not argue that in the original piece, then I missed the mark. I just want to make sure we do so in constructive ways. In the social media echo chamber, we end up hearing what we want to hear or just polarizing the culture more. In issue 3 (upcoming), I hope to offer some concrete ways I believe we can call Riders and The Industry institutions out, push for a change, and help grow BMX how we want it to be. I would love feedback from you and others regarding how you believe we can properly “call out” people and institutions and work to guide BMX in a positive, inclusive, and awesome way.
3. Please help me! This comment addresses at least 3 other full-sized topics, a few of which are on my to-do list. The honest answer is that I do not know enough about some of these and have yet to tackle them. It would be incredible if someone with knowledge about these (hint) would write pieces about them. In short, I think it is extremely important to discuss our neighboring cultures as they have years more experience than us and we could definitely learn from them. In addition, the active lifestyle that BMX demands and the self-motivation it requires are certainly barriers to its growth in this modern era of technology and screen-time activities. Finally, in some ways we MUST grow if we are going to survive and understanding all of the factors that you mentioned can only help us do that.
All of your points serve as examples of why these discussions are so important. Knowledge is power, and humans have survived and prospered for so long due to their self-awareness and introspective nature. BMX culture is simply a microcosm of larger human culture and we too must examine ourselves in order to move forward, grow, and survive in general. We need to ask the questions. We need to debate the answers. And we need to look beyond “just riding” to the culture of BMX. And this is only possible if we study ourselves and the world around us. Thank you very much for your commentary and I hope to hear from you more as a response to this or in your own works.
- Mike
September 14, 2017
Taken from a Facebook promoting the above exchange. Devin Feil's comments on the response I posted above. Numbered for reference to each topic.
1. Yes, those sort of internet commenters do exist, and aren’t constructive. But you are dismissing all the constructive conversations that can be had, both publicly and in private (I had many strangers contact me via DM on Facebook and IG), amongst their friends, co-workers or teammates, and even in their own heads. I saw multiple BMX forums reposting and discussing the topics and can't begin to count the number of conversations I personally had as a result. I can only imagine how many more were had amongst the BMX community. Social media is how the vast majority of people learn about things these days, and then spread those ideas. To dismiss it because you don’t like some of the commenter types you encounter is foolish in my opinion, because you are eliminating a very valuable tool for education and change. One thing you absolutely cannot deny is that I created a hell of a lot of discussion. Whether you agree with the exact methodology is neither here nor there, because the point is that without social media would not have been possible.
2. “A Facebook call out for a boycott is not a realistic way of doing so”
Why? Contrary to what you may believe, the information I brought to light and issues I highlighted, via social media and attention grabbing memes, did indeed result in change. It was the exact opposite of “all bark and no bite.” Without naming specifics I know that the CEO of TCU was dropped from a job as a direct result, some advertisers chose not to renew ads, and the other major media outlets contacted one another to refrain from posting TCU content on those sites. Others chose more subtle changes, including shifting future content releases away from TCU's Youtube account. It reached a point where TCU ran out of options, was fearing for their financial future, and threatened a lawsuit. A bogus one I might add, as the first amendment protects our right to speak the truth, even if it is damaging to a business.
Sure my efforts weren’t as successful as they could have been, but not because it was an impossible feat. BMX would be a perfect industry for a boycott. It’s small as hell. There are only a finite number of core brands to generate ad revenue from, and an even smaller number of people making those decisions as some brands share a single roof. We aren’t talking about changing a massive number of minds. Sure I wanted to change the public’s impression of TCU, but more so I was hoping to sway were the decision makers at the brands. Some I did reach, others unfortunately either didn’t care or thought it was in their financial best interest to stick with TCU. But here we are three years down the line, and exactly what I said was going to happen, did. They had no long term interest in building up BMX or forming truly mutually beneficial partnerships with brands. The money got scarcer and now they are nowhere to be seen. If more people had listened to me from the get go, there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t have happened pretty much overnight.
3. There didn’t need to be any other plan. The hope was that instead of brands funneling dollars into a media outlet which I believe to be exploitative, those same dollars would instead be invested in better options. Those options include advertising with websites which do properly support videographers/photographers, brands’ own photo/video projects and social media accounts, sponsoring jams, or really anything constructive they could fund in terms of marketing. Eliminating negative elements in a culture makes way for more positive things to grow.
Thanks for listening, this is the last I intend to speak on anything BMX related for quite a while. I support what you are doing with Imprimatur, but don’t shoot other means down simply because they aren’t your preferred format of information dissemination. Long form articles have their place, but so does social media activism. I stepped out on a limb, spoke my mind in the name of bettering BMX, and firmly believe that I made a difference.
- Devin Feil
Taken from a Facebook promoting the above exchange. Devin Feil's comments on the response I posted above. Numbered for reference to each topic.
1. Yes, those sort of internet commenters do exist, and aren’t constructive. But you are dismissing all the constructive conversations that can be had, both publicly and in private (I had many strangers contact me via DM on Facebook and IG), amongst their friends, co-workers or teammates, and even in their own heads. I saw multiple BMX forums reposting and discussing the topics and can't begin to count the number of conversations I personally had as a result. I can only imagine how many more were had amongst the BMX community. Social media is how the vast majority of people learn about things these days, and then spread those ideas. To dismiss it because you don’t like some of the commenter types you encounter is foolish in my opinion, because you are eliminating a very valuable tool for education and change. One thing you absolutely cannot deny is that I created a hell of a lot of discussion. Whether you agree with the exact methodology is neither here nor there, because the point is that without social media would not have been possible.
2. “A Facebook call out for a boycott is not a realistic way of doing so”
Why? Contrary to what you may believe, the information I brought to light and issues I highlighted, via social media and attention grabbing memes, did indeed result in change. It was the exact opposite of “all bark and no bite.” Without naming specifics I know that the CEO of TCU was dropped from a job as a direct result, some advertisers chose not to renew ads, and the other major media outlets contacted one another to refrain from posting TCU content on those sites. Others chose more subtle changes, including shifting future content releases away from TCU's Youtube account. It reached a point where TCU ran out of options, was fearing for their financial future, and threatened a lawsuit. A bogus one I might add, as the first amendment protects our right to speak the truth, even if it is damaging to a business.
Sure my efforts weren’t as successful as they could have been, but not because it was an impossible feat. BMX would be a perfect industry for a boycott. It’s small as hell. There are only a finite number of core brands to generate ad revenue from, and an even smaller number of people making those decisions as some brands share a single roof. We aren’t talking about changing a massive number of minds. Sure I wanted to change the public’s impression of TCU, but more so I was hoping to sway were the decision makers at the brands. Some I did reach, others unfortunately either didn’t care or thought it was in their financial best interest to stick with TCU. But here we are three years down the line, and exactly what I said was going to happen, did. They had no long term interest in building up BMX or forming truly mutually beneficial partnerships with brands. The money got scarcer and now they are nowhere to be seen. If more people had listened to me from the get go, there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t have happened pretty much overnight.
3. There didn’t need to be any other plan. The hope was that instead of brands funneling dollars into a media outlet which I believe to be exploitative, those same dollars would instead be invested in better options. Those options include advertising with websites which do properly support videographers/photographers, brands’ own photo/video projects and social media accounts, sponsoring jams, or really anything constructive they could fund in terms of marketing. Eliminating negative elements in a culture makes way for more positive things to grow.
Thanks for listening, this is the last I intend to speak on anything BMX related for quite a while. I support what you are doing with Imprimatur, but don’t shoot other means down simply because they aren’t your preferred format of information dissemination. Long form articles have their place, but so does social media activism. I stepped out on a limb, spoke my mind in the name of bettering BMX, and firmly believe that I made a difference.
- Devin Feil