Zwift and the E-Crit Reboot Blunder, a cautionary tale…

First things first, this is admittedly a first world problem. An endearing problem that’s worked its way into the heart of the Cycling Community. It is true, Zwift is a video game. So I ask in earnest, what is Zwift to you? Is it a game, or has it evolved to be more than that? Men and women alike are getting babysitters, calling in spouse favors, hurrying home from work or taking off early and ditching dinners plans to race online. Perhaps it’s time modernize our mentality for modern gaming and exercise. Embrace first world problems and recognize Zwift is more than a game. After all, for Zwift, and its investors, this game is its Business. With this in mind, Zwift should make it its business to brush up its public relations game.

Yesterday, the announcement of E-Crit “reboot” was a delivered via a clumsily worded (and then re-worded, and re-worded) post on a two community Facebook Pages, citing reasons* that read like excuses. And if you could keep up with the fast and furious comments and threads, you might have caught yet another reason or two (curiously omitted from original post) for the reboot—namely a “bug” that QA discovered, and oh yeah something about aligning KISS and Zwift Power.

Huh? Further digging them into the hole with hard to decipher comments about “worthiness”.

And because Zwift miscalculated and “the event not delivering on its objectives” the race will be extended to 10 weeks.

If low turn out was truly the problem, I doubt a longer duration series solve it? This new design isn’t exactly cyclist friendly. Many cyclists are on very specific training plans, and racing weekly for 10 weeks during the winter might not fit into that plan. It's my hunch that one reason for "super low" turnout had a lot more to do with how the races were messaged rather than duration. The language “all welcome”, but be prepared for a 4.0 w/kg race is not exactly welcoming to “all” (see also “worthiness”).

Head spinning yet? Let’s break it down. Zwift designed a 5-week series, published the rules, and explained the selection criteria for a super exciting grand finale in-person race in January. Though it was all very simple and easy to understand, it was hardly convenient. Men and women alike showed up, many turning their lives upside down to show up to race at inopportune times. And guess what? To those who showed up every week, it was actually quite competitive, and also a lot of fun. To put it mildly, the community is hugely disappointed that Zwift decided to change its rules just hours before the 5th and final race of the series. Aside from leaving a sour taste in the mouth of the riders who did show up, many are left wary of a rebooted series, and not trust that Zwift will adhere to any rules it sets forth.

But lets dig a little deeper, and specifically address one of the central nerves struck in the post. The last reason cited (before the latest edit*) for the reboot was low participation by the women. Citing women as one of the reasons for the E-Crit failure rings of scapegoating and only serves to alienate the very crowd Zwift is trying to reach.

But the message is clear that in Zwift's opinion, the women’s field of competitors was too low/little. Instead of addressing this at the beginning of the series, the plug was pulled in the 11th hour, irritating the women who actually did show up (myself included). And this subjective “super low” turnout language plays like a broken record to the women, and comes immediately on the heels of (a community organized) event that also deemed the female turnout “too low”. In that event, the women's race was only served as side dish to the main course (this, in spite of field more than doubling from 2016). In the end, many ladies passed on that entree and left the table, deciding to sit that race out (myself included). If the menu doesn’t change, many ladies my simply leave the restaurant. If race organizers want women to show up, they need to stop pointing fingers and write equal rules (and stick to them)- not the kind of rules that hope for A, but reward for B.

For a company who engaged more than 2000 women through their Zwift Academy program, and has powerhouse roster of women in their ranks, I'm shocked/stunned they can’t figure out how to make better decisions? Or at the very least, better message this stuff?

This blunder is a symptom of a larger problem. If this event failed to meet its objectives and Zwift is unhappy with the outcome, Zwift needs to have a look in the mirror. They need to own the the E-Crit as a poorly conceived series, made worse by poor planning, and execution. Perhaps that's what they thought they were doing in the “announcement” on community run social channels. But that gets me back to my original point, Zwift has fallen short with managing user expectations and relations. Zwift is a business, and business's need to make a profit. With this comes responsibility to the Zwift user base, specifically to the users that take it to the next level showing up and committing to racing events, and this case a race series.

So Zwift, when talking to your customers, here are a few guidelines to help in the future:

1) Put Yourself in the Customers Shoes

2) Be Consistent with Information Release

(Note:*edits and new iterations to message are still going on as of 8am EST today on two different FB groups)

3) Be Straightforward

4) Know Your Audience.

And #5: Perhaps announce such unfortunate news on the official Zwift Facebook page, and then share it- or better, add it to your website and share that link to social media. That way maybe the messenger wouldn’t have had to take so many punches from the community.

Wow, it was just one short week ago I wrote a little blog about the price increase, suggesting that in spite of its tone deaf timing (given server failures), Zwift customers should chalk that miscue up to growing pains. Strike two Zwift.

*Reasons cited for E-Crit “Reboot”