Soul Cycle - - Would you teach there?

Soul Cycle sounds like a great opportunity to do what you love & actually get compensated for it.

I'm conflicted by these two ICI articles Chuck.

I found your article confusing (about the Master Class you attended); I couldn't tell if you were criticizing or praising Soul Cycle's methods, because you sort of do both. You say that your HR never got back below T2 after the first 2 minutes, and implied that in order to take a SC class one shouldn't wear a HRM because it's going to be off the charts. You said you did "simulated weights" because there were no weights...but would it have been any different had you had 1 lb weights? Not really.

You also said: "During the first thirty minutes we spent a good percentage of time out of the saddle and at high cadences. I observed a new position; come out of the saddle, rest all your upper body weight on the handle bars, and then spin at extremely high cadences. I didn’t even try." (good thing you didn't try because that sounds extremely dangerous; with all the weight on the hands, this could easily be an ACL injury waiting to happen.)

Despite all that, you said in the comments that you liked the class and would have auditioned if you lived closer. If you were willing to audition, it means you buy into their methods and would be happy to teach them. And in John's first article asking if you would teach for SC, you emphatically said Yes.

This seems to be quite contradictory, especially since you have Heart Zones and Cycling Fusion certifications listed in your signature, and you've told me in the past that you learned so much when you first read Keep it Real.

One can be awed by Soul Cycle's business success (as many seem to be) but when you look closer and analyze if you want to be a part of this phenomenon, it comes down to integrity and what you are willing to do for that almighty buck. Could you really do that Chuck, having taken, listened to or read all those certs, audios or books with Tom Scotto, or Gene or Sally or me? Because you know that if you were to audition for Soul Cycle, you would have to completely abandon the idea of "keeping it real" or caring about HR or T1 or T2, or even caring about knee or back safety for that matter. You'd have to sell their product lock, stock and barrel. No half-assed instructors allowed. You'll have to believe wholeheartedly in all of these positions (including tap-backs, pushups, and dips, plus that unweighted low resistance sprinting thing you described above, etc) and sell them to your students like you invented them. You'd have to preach that it's your core that is the only thing holding you up when you stand up, as explained in this video where "Expert Laurie explains the right way to exercise on a stationary bike".

You'd have to spin those legs at 140 rpm with no resistance and bounce all over the place, so much so that your sweat is flying around the room. And you'd have to applaud this, not caring if the students are set-up really really poorly, as Wendy is on her own television show in front of who-knows-how-many eyes.

Basically, you will have to eschew what you know to be correct, safe, evidence-based cycling to work for Soul Cycle.

You would do it?

One commenter on the first article remarks about integrity: "what would teaching with a lack of integrity look like to me? Form issues primarily. The push ups on a bike type nonsense, along with weights, etc." That is admirable that she questions that, but where does one draw the line? She doesn't draw it very deep, because later in her comment she says "A teeny tiny part of me feels like I would be selling out, but hey, 50K a year and insurance…for 8 hours a week…I can be bought."

So that raises the question: do the current Soul Cycle instructors really have no idea about what they're doing? Are they ignorant and truly believe this stuff? Or are they laughing all the way to the bank because they sold out and don't care?

John says in the first article: "Spend a few minutes looking at the Instructor bios and you’ll see most have the same (if not better) credentials than many of the Instructors that I know personally."

Not sure what that is supposed to mean except that if someone is teaching that lifting a 1-lb weight for 5 minutes is giving you an upper body workout or that pushups while cycling is a "core workout", and they also have one or more personal training and/or "reputable" cycling certifications, doesn't it really mean they are not the sharpest tool in the shed? It says more about how they too have sold out than that they are "qualified".

The seeming trend on ICI, or even Pedal On, to admire Soul Cycle is disconcerting. Yes, there are most definitely some things they are doing right - I wrote some articles on the subject last year on ICA on what we as instructors and studios can learn from Soul Cycle while still staying true to our convictions. I pointed out things like the sense of community they create, the ambiance, the motivational empowerment (although some of it is very gooey), and good customer service (although many reviews paint SC as very elitist and complain that the good customer service is only extended to their very loyal followers). But mostly their success is due to expert marketing and PR. When you've got millions of dollars invested in a marketing and PR juggernaut, and you can get your product on every TV news, variety or talk show and every newspaper and online journal, and in Vanity Fair magazine, you can sell ANYTHING to a gullible public, especially to celebrities (and you know people want what the celebrities are doing). They also know that by making one's product expensive, exclusive and hard to get, one can create a demand, regardless of its quality.

But this admiration is going beyond the "feel-good" aspect of Soul Cycle. "Indoor Cycling 2.0" seems to accept that the Soul Cycle method is a valid form of training, and in so doing, accepts that the risks are worth the glam. John says, "I think Chuck is on to something here. We all could probably use to spend sometime (sic) over at the 'dark side' and then bring some of it back to our own classes."

He also says, "10-4 Vivienne. I too dread the day when those who consider themselves as the arbiters of what’s right or real, get the chance to impose their views on our industry."

Does this statement worry anyone else? Is he talking about those who would reject the Soul Cycle technique as "wrong" and "not real"? So who might those "arbiters of what's right or real" be? The ones who preach safe and effective science-based training and make no exceptions? Might that include Cycling Fusion, Stages, C.O.R.E, and of course me and ICA? Is he including educational books like Keep it Real designed to teach instructors the reasons behind why we shouldn't do those contraindicated techniques? Not sure who else he might be referring to, since there really aren't many others who preach "right and real" cycling-based indoor cycling quite as adamantly we do. [Spinning of course does not condone contraindications, but with 9 movements and Max HR, it's not quite as cycling-specific as these others.]

He says, "...impose their views on our industry"? Whose industry? What if "they" are the future of the industry?

Pedal On has always, in its long history, been a forum which has preached that indoor cycling and Spinning must respect real cycling and the science of our sport. It would be sad day if that commitment were to fade. I hope the long time contributors to Pedal On won't let that happen.

The recent series of articles/posts focused (mainly) Soul Cycle and similar studios has proven to be interesting to read. The history and experience of the posters gives one pause when considering what they have written. The posts have given me pause to consider what is being representing and how it is being presented.

One of the perceptions I have from reading the assorted posts found on various outlets regarding Soul Cycle (and similar studios) is that these studios are primarily interested in hiring performers - actors that can take on a role and captivate, seduce the audience (into returning and spending more money). One does not have to be a theoretical physicist to play one on TV. It is entertainment first, so to speak, for these studios.

It would be interesting to audition just from that perspective - do I possess those mesmerizing showmanship skills? Could I as an instructor get up on stage and play that role that is being asked for? [In fact, I am not that type of person/instructor, so I would fail to pass muster on that point]. To audition, and to be offered a position would validate one aspect of the instructor. It speaks nothing of the technical skills of riding or teaching technique indoors.

Does teaching at Soul Cycle mean that you have to do moves that you don't agree with? Or is it more important to be able to provide entertainment to the masses? Would it be possible to entertain and still just have people pedal easy/pedal hard with no other props than the bike, some lights flashing and some music?

Soul Cycle (and similar studios) present an interesting - and successful - business model. What instructor does not dream of having full, mega-sized classes of participants paying exorbitant fees. Really it is no different than a singer dreaming of becoming a rock star commanding ticket prices nearing triple digits, selling out in venues that hold more people than the population of many towns. It is after all, profit motivation that is driving the business model. Success is defined by values as selected by the individual - for many, that success value is money and fame. To paraphrase a marketing expression, even bad press gets your name in the news.

Could an instructor go to these studios and learn something? Perhaps. They might learn how to put on an entertaining show/performance. Do they need to use the same props or routines as these studios are using? Hopefully not. Hopefully they would be able to take the showmanship, the performance presentation, and use their own repertoire that stick to fundamentals taught from the majority of the bike manufacturers and accredited programs.

Jennifer I was relieved when a member pointed out your statement that you were no longer going to participate here.

So I was surprised to find your 1,326 words of criticism to two articles published at indoorcycleinstructor.com.

I'm not willing to respond to how you've once again made much of this all about you, but I will offer my thoughts to these specific comments:

Originally Posted by Funhog

I'm conflicted by these two ICI articles Chuck.

I found your article confusing (about the Master Class you attended); I couldn't tell if you were criticizing or praising Soul Cycle's methods, because you sort of do both. You say that your HR never got back below T2 after the first 2 minutes, and implied that in order to take a SC class one shouldn't wear a HRM because it's going to be off the charts. You said you did "simulated weights" because there were no weights...but would it have been any different had you had 1 lb weights? Not really.

You also said: "During the first thirty minutes we spent a good percentage of time out of the saddle and at high cadences. I observed a new position; come out of the saddle, rest all your upper body weight on the handle bars, and then spin at extremely high cadences. I didn’t even try." (good thing you didn't try because that sounds extremely dangerous; with all the weight on the hands, this could easily be an ACL injury waiting to happen.)

Despite all that, you said in the comments that you liked the class and would have auditioned if you lived closer. If you were willing to audition, it means you buy into their methods and would be happy to teach them. And in John's first article asking if you would teach for SC, you emphatically said Yes.

This seems to be quite contradictory, especially since you have Heart Zones and Cycling Fusion certifications listed in your signature, and you've told me in the past that you learned so much when you first read Keep it Real.

I can easily understand why you see this as a contradiction. Chuck's observations are first hand. He actually went to a class and there were parts of it that he liked. To the best of my knowledge, you on the other hand have based all of your comments on hearsay and a few videos.

Chuck is a man of integrity (hopefully he will add to this soon) and I'm guessing that he felt that he could successfully integrate proper techniques with the excitement and entertainment required from a Soul Cycle Instructor.

Originally Posted by Funhog

The seeming trend on ICI, or even Pedal On, to admire Soul Cycle is disconcerting. Yes, there are most definitely some things they are doing right - I wrote some articles on the subject last year on ICA on what we as instructors and studios can learn from Soul Cycle while still staying true to our convictions. I pointed out things like the sense of community they create, the ambiance, the motivational empowerment (although some of it is very gooey), and good customer service (although many reviews paint SC as very elitist and complain that the good customer service is only extended to their very loyal followers). But mostly their success is due to expert marketing and PR. When you've got millions of dollars invested in a marketing and PR juggernaut, and you can get your product on every TV news, variety or talk show and every newspaper and online journal, and in Vanity Fair magazine, you can sell ANYTHING to a gullible public, especially to celebrities (and you know people want what the celebrities are doing). They also know that by making one's product expensive, exclusive and hard to get, one can create a demand, regardless of its quality.

The primary way we differ here, is that I don't believe people are idiots and/or victims of advertising. Thousands of intelligent people participate in Soul Cycle classes because they want to, not because they have been manipulated. Our goal at ICI/PRO is to help Instructors become great Instructors with full studios. When I see the market asking for something I'm going to encourage our members adapt to these trends because that's ultimately what their customers are looking for in a class.

Originally Posted by Funhog

But this admiration is going beyond the "feel-good" aspect of Soul Cycle. "Indoor Cycling 2.0" seems to accept that the Soul Cycle method is a valid form of training, and in so doing, accepts that the risks are worth the glam. John says, "I think Chuck is on to something here. We all could probably use to spend sometime (sic) over at the 'dark side' and then bring some of it back to our own classes."

Like the arrogant tenured college professor, who's never had to face the pressures of being held accountable for their work, I'm not aware that you have ever had to maintain a class in a big box club. Your rigid, conservative views regarding what you feel is/is not permissible in a class may sell in your little 10 bike boutique studio, but I'm pretty certain that you'd be starring at 50+ empty saddles, if you tried to regularly conduct one of your "real" classes at the club where I teach.

Originally Posted by Funhog

He also says, "10-4 Vivienne. I too dread the day when those who consider themselves as the arbiters of what’s right or real, get the chance to impose their views on our industry."

Does this statement worry anyone else? Is he talking about those who would reject the Soul Cycle technique as "wrong" and "not real"? So who might those "arbiters of what's right or real" be? The ones who preach safe and effective science-based training and make no exceptions? Might that include Cycling Fusion, Stages, C.O.R.E, and of course me and ICA? Is he including educational books like Keep it Real designed to teach instructors the reasons behind why we shouldn't do those contraindicated techniques? Not sure who else he might be referring to, since there really aren't many others who preach "right and real" cycling-based indoor cycling quite as adamantly we do. [Spinning of course does not condone contraindications, but with 9 movements and Max HR, it's not quite as cycling-specific as these others.]

Our world is filled with "do-gooders" who routinely suck all of the fun out of life, while professing that they are doing it for our own good or protection.

Originally Posted by Funhog

He says, "...impose their views on our industry"? Whose industry? What if "they" are the future of the industry?

If you are implying that you are the future of Indoor Cycling then you're delusional. The popularity of Soul Cycle demonstrates that participants are hungry for what they are offering. We all need to pay heed to this trend and find ways to bring the elements of entertainment and fun into an Indoor Cycling 2.0 class - or risk being replaced by another Instructor who will.

Originally Posted by Funhog

Pedal On has always, in its long history, been a forum which has preached that indoor cycling and Spinning must respect real cycling and the science of our sport. It would be sad day if that commitment were to fade. I hope the long time contributors to Pedal On won't let that happen.

When I hear people use words such as; preached and must respect, I don't hear someone truly interested in helping Indoor Cycling Instructors adapt in ways needed to become successful.

Jennifer I've tolerated your disruptive behavior here in the past for one simple reason; my impression is that you love creating drama for self serving purposes. Banning you for not following our rules would have created the opportunity for you to play the martyred victim. So I have ignored your previous baiting and personal criticisms of me here, in the past.

But no more.

Jennifer Sage AKA FunHog, this was your last post here at Pedal-On.com.

I think one of the interesting things about Soul Cycle is that they don't claim to sell fitness, they sell "feel good" so all the "contraindicated movements" really are meaningless because they aren't adhering to any fitness program.

I am really sorry to see that critical arguement is scilenced here. I do respect Jennifer Sage because she has so many years as a Master Instructor and has the credentials to support her opinions. I think the ban is a huge over reaction and speaks very poorly for the management of this site. What a Shame!

Funhog,


Your loquacious dissertation regarding recent posts of mine on ICI/PRO made interesting reading. Clearly your passion for indoor cycling has not waned nor wavered from your singular focus on, keeping it real.


One of the great things I enjoy about writing posts on such online forums is whether they generate more commentary. My post certainly did that so I am happy.


To be clear, I did actually attend the Soul Cycle Master Class in San Francisco. I’ve read nothing on ICI, Pedal-On or ICA that indicates to me that any readers of those forums have done the same.


Beside the owners of Soul Cycle and their two master instructors, I met some very nice people - indoor cycle instructors themselves - very dedicated to our craft. They were all as excited as I to experience such a popular up and coming genre - not to mention successful business model - of indoor cycling.


The class was very different from what I teach (primarily the tenants of Indoor cycling 2.0) and I tried to express that in my post. Describing the ride as if I were writing it as I experienced it, is likely why some readers were wondering which side of the like/dislike line I stood.


I went on to say, I liked it. And I did. Would I agree that some of the moves they asked us to do were contraindicated? Yes. That fact does not change the reason I liked it.


I liked it because it deepened the connection between instructor and rider on a level not often seen in training based indoor cycling. I’m not saying - to be sure - that Soul Cycle classes are training based.


I also acknowledged that I chose not pursue the audition as I was unwilling to commit to the commute to San Francisco.


It would have been my fervent hope that, had circumstances allowed, I passed the audition, made it through training and taken the stage, that I could have delivered very popular classes while integrating those principles of Indoor cycling 2.0.


The Soul Cycle stage as a function of their mission allows instructors to touch their riders more deeply - in my opinion - and that connection is exactly what owners Elizabeth Cutler and Julie Rice expressed as their penultimate goal during their opening remarks before the Master Class.


I’ll end with this. One thing I know for sure, connecting with your riders is not contraindicated. If an open mind and a new experience can enhance my ability to connect my soul and love of riding with my riders then mastery of my craft is within reach. I may never get there but the journey is sure cool.

I initially wanted to reply to the OP question "Would you teach at Soul Cycle" with Yes. The question was thought provoking and made me think how can I make my classes better by looking at a successful story like Soul Cycle. The way I see it is the more people interested in Cycling or Spinning the better for the industry in general, whether it is in a keep it real studio or theatre setting.


John- Thanks for keeping the site and opinions going. Please add the "Like" button No need for "Dislike" . We can do the math

Originally Posted by GoogooSpin

I am really sorry to see that critical arguement is scilenced here. I do respect Jennifer Sage because she has so many years as a Master Instructor and has the credentials to support her opinions. I think the ban is a huge over reaction and speaks very poorly for the management of this site. What a Shame!

While I agree with you in principle, in reality Jennifer's contributions have become almost non-existent of late and appear to be designed more as a joint effort to market her ICA site and stick it to ICI's management if at all possible. Of course, I wouldn't expect her to be making the free contributions that she did prior to firing up her for fee site, but they could at least come without the "price tag" of yet more sniping at John. It looks small minded and, as John pointed out, designed to provoke exactly the response it did.

Originally Posted by veranda

I initially wanted to reply to the OP question "Would you teach at Soul Cycle" with Yes. The question was thought provoking and made me think how can I make my classes better by looking at a successful story like Soul Cycle. The way I see it is the more people interested in Cycling or Spinning the better for the industry in general, whether it is in a keep it real studio or theatre setting.


John- Thanks for keeping the site and opinions going. Please add the "Like" buttonNo need for "Dislike" . We can do the math

Please don't.

I've seen far too many internet boards and social media sources descend into snipe-fests when folk get a little "overempowered" by a slew of anonymous "likes" (usually a backhanded "dislike" for an unpopular opinion or poster)

I say go the "clicker training"/operant conditioning route......ignore the bad and praise the good.

Vivienne

Originally Posted by CycleGuy

Soul Cycle (and similar studios) present an interesting - and successful - business model. What instructor does not dream of having full, mega-sized classes of participants paying exorbitant fees. Really it is no different than a singer dreaming of becoming a rock star commanding ticket prices nearing triple digits, selling out in venues that hold more people than the population of many towns. It is after all, profit motivation that is driving the business model. Success is defined by values as selected by the individual - for many, that success value is money and fame. To paraphrase a marketing expression, even bad press gets your name in the news.

Could an instructor go to these studios and learn something? Perhaps. They might learn how to put on an entertaining show/performance........

I find the whole success of Soul Cycle (and stuff like Tracy Anderson's Method and Gillian MIchaels's Patented Nitwittery etc. etc) a bit of a puzzle, really. In that a successful business model needs to follow through on promises and marketing in order to remain successful (and, in my former *gig*.....to avoid laws suits)

I haven't been to a Soul Cycle class......so I have a whole slew of very dogmatic opinions I can bring to the table. You know what, though, I would attend a *Master Class* just as an experience and to "see for myself". If I then had an opportunity to attend a regular class I would do that also........to compare how the marketing actually stacks up with the product in a Secret Shopper sorta way. Maybe I'd ask an uncomfortable question or six, if I felt like it. I'm usually good for that

My puzzlement mainly stems from vids I've seen on Youtube. I can't be bothered to hunt them down to make a point, but one that I saw featured Kelly Ripa (to Soul Cycle what Gwyneth Paltrow is to Tracy Anderson.......which says it all, I guess). They'd dispensed with the candles for the cameras.....Kelly mentioned on the vid. that they all looked more attractive by candlelight. Well, you know what.....I think the whole business model/marketing stuff looks *Better By Candlelight*.

The set-up looked very shabby indeed........gloomy environment, bikes crammed close together, inaudible instructor cues, couldn't quite tell about the music/sound system/AC etc (which to me is all part of the "experience"). I couldn't quite tell how this extra special customer service and the extra special connection with loony tune customers *AS ADVERTISED* in some of their press releases!!......would manifest itself. For me, the saving grace would be putting up with all of this sub-optimal stuff for RESULTS......but it looked to me like any ole chortle-worthy *How Not To Teach IDC* example out on the internet in a low-rent setting. This was presumably a star instructor's class, as it was full and had at least one high profile personage there......

I fancy that Soul Cycle's success comes from the notion that you can, in fact, fool some of the people all of the time (and it helps no end if they're High Profile Personages) and fill in with those who you can fool some of the time......but if you can't hack what it takes to do this, that glistening compensation package of $50K + bennies a year is fooling a lot of would be instructors.......based, as it is, on butts in the saddle.

Vivienne

Originally Posted by GoogooSpin

I am really sorry to see that critical arguement is scilenced here. I do respect Jennifer Sage because she has so many years as a Master Instructor and has the credentials to support her opinions. I think the ban is a huge over reaction and speaks very poorly for the management of this site. What a Shame!

I don't agree that anything is being silenced here, but I do agree that she has the credentials to support her opinions. It's just that from where I sit, all that experience and all those credentials come with an expectation of Professionalism.

This a business for me. Ms. Sage was offered the exact same opportunity to become an Industry Specialist as any other commercial entity wishing to promote their products or services here at Pedal-On.com.

Originally Posted by Vivienne

I find the whole success of Soul Cycle (and stuff like Tracy Anderson's Method and Gillian MIchaels's Patented Nitwittery etc. etc) a bit of a puzzle, really. In that a successful business model needs to follow through on promises and marketing in order to remain successful (and, in my former *gig*.....to avoid laws suits)

I haven't been to a Soul Cycle class......so I have a whole slew of very dogmatic opinions I can bring to the table. You know what, though, I would attend a *Master Class* just as an experience and to "see for myself". If I then had an opportunity to attend a regular class I would do that also........to compare how the marketing actually stacks up with the product in a Secret Shopper sorta way. Maybe I'd ask an uncomfortable question or six, if I felt like it. I'm usually good for that

My puzzlement mainly stems from vids I've seen on Youtube. I can't be bothered to hunt them down to make a point, but one that I saw featured Kelly Ripa (to Soul Cycle what Gwyneth Paltrow is to Tracy Anderson.......which says it all, I guess). They'd dispensed with the candles for the cameras.....Kelly mentioned on the vid. that they all looked more attractive by candlelight. Well, you know what.....I think the whole business model/marketing stuff looks *Better By Candlelight*.

The set-up looked very shabby indeed........gloomy environment, bikes crammed close together, inaudible instructor cues, couldn't quite tell about the music/sound system/AC etc (which to me is all part of the "experience"). I couldn't quite tell how this extra special customer service and the extra special connection with loony tune customers *AS ADVERTISED* in some of their press releases!!......would manifest itself. For me, the saving grace would be putting up with all of this sub-optimal stuff for RESULTS......but it looked to me like any ole chortle-worthy *How Not To Teach IDC* example out on the internet in a low-rent setting. This was presumably a star instructor's class, as it was full and had at least one high profile personage there......

I fancy that Soul Cycle's success comes from the notion that you can, in fact, fool some of the people all of the time (and it helps no end if they're High Profile Personages) and fill in with those who you can fool some of the time......but if you can't hack what it takes to do this, that glistening compensation package of $50K + bennies a year is fooling a lot of would be instructors.......based, as it is, on butts in the saddle.

Vivienne

I will say it again and again and again and again, Soul Cycle markets itself as a "feel good" experience, not a fitness program. To that end it is probably very true to its marketing and as long as people leave "feeling good," they aren't really fooling anyone. That their participants may be fooling themselves is another issue.

I'd just like to add that I'm glad Chuck and John offered a voice to a thought that kept creeping into my head as I would hear about all of this SC hype. I really wanted to know how are they doing it? and how can I do it too? Not the stuff that is going to hurt anyone, but where has all of this momentum come from? What has these people hooked? I was quite intrigued by Chuck's thoughts and like John said, I think I can pick through the chaffe to find the gems. SpinBob has it dead on -- they make every single person in the room feel good. They don't make them feel guilty for wanting to be entertained in addition to sweated up and they don't bother them with technical stuff. It gives me pause. And helps me start to look for ways to up my game. I want folks to want to do it my way for their benefit not mine, so I better try damn hard to bring a little more (as Les Mills calls it) "Fitness Magic" to the floor or my lovely Spinning® studio will be empty.

I have been to SC and can assure you that they do not make every person "feel good". In the class I was in , one person got sick during the warm up and left and one person was hurt during the workout and had to be helped out. The PR is the key. Creating the excitement with PR, smoke and mirrors and candles, down playing credentials may work in the short run, but let's see where it is years from now. After all, disco was the thing for a while! Thank goodness, the place I work views quality over quantity!
On a side note, I know it is very hard for some not to take the bait, but it would be nice to see the administration not be drawn in to the fray and decree that a person would be banned from the site. Not everyone knows the history, and those who do, do not want to relive it. How do you think that comes across to new visitors to the site that may read only this thread? I am sure if you rethink this, you might choose to breath and let it pass. A bit advise from an old soul, pride goes before the fall!

Thanks Carole. You have been there done that.

Originally Posted by Carole

I have been to SC and can assure you that they do not make every person "feel good". In the class I was in , one person got sick during the warm up and left and one person was hurt during the workout and had to be helped out. The PR is the key. Creating the excitement with PR, smoke and mirrors and candles....

See, that's what I was thinking. The Youtube vid I saw had no hint of "customer service" about it.....that's why I'd both go to a *Master Class* and follow up with the stuff in the trenches if the opportunity was easy and convenient. Seems to me that the marketing is aimed at the sort of folk who're happy to go to Starbucks and pay for mediocre coffee when their neighbourhood deli has it fresh and nice for 1/3 the price.

Vivienne

Originally Posted by Vivienne

See, that's what I was thinking. The Youtube vid I saw had no hint of "customer service" about it.....that's why I'd both go to a *Master Class* and follow up with the stuff in the trenches if the opportunity was easy and convenient. Seems to me that the marketing is aimed at the sort of folk who're happy to go to Starbucks and pay for mediocre coffee when their neighbourhood deli has it fresh and nice for 1/3 the price.

Vivienne

Oh, there aren't really people like that out there, are there?

Originally Posted by Vivienne

See, that's what I was thinking. The Youtube vid I saw had no hint of "customer service" about it.....that's why I'd both go to a *Master Class* and follow up with the stuff in the trenches if the opportunity was easy and convenient. Seems to me that the marketing is aimed at the sort of folk who're happy to go to Starbucks and pay for mediocre coffee when their neighbourhood deli has it fresh and nice for 1/3 the price.

Vivienne

I love Starbucks!

Originally Posted by veranda

I love Starbucks!

Well, I too love Starbucks when the coffee's good......but sometimes it's not. Come to that, oftentimes it's not. But it's Starbucks.... and I guess I'm as bad as anyone who's susceptible to marketing flim-flam and I have been known to go back, and the coffee's still been bad. Never a third time, though.