Profits: Bikes vs Helmets ?
 

I had an interesting discussion this morning about the Build It For Isabella campaign. People4Bikes is funded by bicycle mfr.'s and retailers. Obviously they want to sell more product. The question that came up is if a shop would rather sell more bikes, or fewer bikes but also helmets along with them (from a monetary standpoint, not ethical or anything else)?

EG, if the inclusion of a helmet for Isabella makes bicycling seem dangerous and thus discourages people from buying and riding bicycles. Do the profits from a helmet make up for a lost bicycle sale?

Hopefully this makes sense.

Profit margins for accessories are typically much higher than they are for bikes. From a purely monetary standpoint, if a shop is only selling bikes, while being unsuccessful at selling accessories to go with them, then that shop is not likely to do well in terms of profit.

On the other hand, if it's merely a one-off choice between selling a bike or selling a helmet, then I'd prefer to sell the bike. The helmet alone does them no good, whereas they can ride a bike without one. My hope would be for them to come back later for accessories and maintenance due to having had a good experience with purchasing their bike from my shop.

Of course, one can debate whether the recommendation of a helmet truly discourages anyone from riding a bike because it "makes bicycling seem dangerous," but that's beside the point. Ultimately, I'll try to sell bikes and accessories together, not only for the sake of greater profit margins, but also to help improve a customer's overall cycling experience in terms of comfort, preparedness, safety, efficiency, etc.

Gross margin on a bike is about 35; for helmets 50.

Shops don't make much money on bike sales; they live on accessory sales and repairs. Helmets are only a part of accessory sales, and most riders buying a bike also purchase more than just a helmet as an accessory purchase the the time of the bike sale.

If helmets making cycling seem dangerous means less bike sales, it means less customer traffic, less bike sales, but more importantly less total accessory sales and potential future labor.

Flipside is that in many states where helmet use is optional for adults, it is still mandatory for kids.

How do helmets make bikes seem 'dangerous' and fewer bikers; but seat-belts and airbags don't have any effect on cars or the opposite effect? Honestly, I've never been able get my head around this mismatch of reality/perception.

But the real question - you said the same thing I was thinking:

Guess it depends on how old one is. When I was a kid, wearing safety gear to ride, skate, ect. was basically unheard of, but today the message seems to be "OMG, yer-gonna-die" if you don't use safety gear. Many people believe it because that's what they've been taught, and never knew it any other way.

I grew up in the '70s - no seatbelts, helmets, etc. Both seatbelts and helmets came into common use in the '80s. For me, I started using seatbelts as a rule in the mid-80s and bike helmets in the late-80s.

Side note - over the weekend I saw a guy wearing my first helmet from the late-80s. Specialized version of this:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=405692

That helmet is ~25 years old. I don't have any bikes that old!

If you wade through the pinned Helmet Thread (godz bless you if you do...), you'll find before and after studies where mandatory helmet laws were implemented -- like Australia -- where ridership drops after helmets become required by law. But this thread is dangerously close to Helmet Thread banishmentation, so if you really want to talk about stuff like that, go do it there, not in this thread...

Mismatch of accessories. I believe that mandatory helmet laws for motorists, starting with the youngest passengers, would indeed create the (correct) impression that motor vehicles are dangerous. By dangerous, I don't mean that they are something only an extremely daring person would use, only that they are about as dangerous a means of transportation as walking or cycling and thus warrant reasonable risk reduction measures. It appears to me that most people currently think of motorized transport as absolutely risk free, which skews their view of cycling.

At least it is clear that a proper motor vehicle grade helmet can actually afford substantial protection for motorists and is thus unlikely to generate as much heated debate as the subject does for cyclists.:roflmao2:

Been there, fun if your not too serious about anything. I know the studies, I know it's a "reality" that people ride less when required to wear a helmet. But this doesn't match mandatory seat belt laws or the 17 airbags* required in all new cars. That's what hurts my head.


* exaggeration for humor.

Where the heck were seatbelts non-existent in the '70s? Even my '66 mustang had seatbelts, although only lap-belts.

This ^^^

seatbelts and helmets existed prior to the '80s, but people started using them in '80s.

we had a '70's Nova with lap belt and shoulder belt in the headliner, never used either of them. by the '80s seatbelt worked much better and were easier to use.

I remember some cars in the 70s' had clips in the headliner to secure the shoulder belt so it wouldn't always be dangling down, in tee way. They really never expected people to use them.

Lanovran and mconlonx, thanks for the info. I would guess that if it's a choice between selling two bikes + helmets + accessories and selling three bikes + accessories that the profits on the third bike + accessories would make up (or more than make up?) for the loss of two helmet sales?

I am given to understand the profit margin regarding bicycling helmets is greater than movie theatres' popcorn--r&d included.

^ I reference the mfg/wholesale portion. The retailer does well on it also.

Excellent points. Also consider that ppl bring the bikes in for repairs regularly, whereas they practically never get their helmets "repaired", and I've seen many pp, continuing to use damaged helmets, rather than replacing them....

I wouldn't be surprised if the packaging for a helmet costs the manufacturer more than fabricating the helmet.

Which is kinda ironic considering the materials used in most helmets is also used in packaging, thermoformed plastic and expanded rigid foam.

The answer is 'affect', or how something is experienced bodily (or cognitively depending on your theoretical framework). Airbags are the easiest to compare - they are hidden inside steering wheels and dashboard etc so are mostly not experienced bodily - the big exception being in the case of an accident and anyone can understand how an accident will color your perception of motor vehicle safety.

Helmets on the other hand are worn on the head, they exert weight and presence on the most sensitive and sensory part of your body. They may also be in vision, at the top of the eyeline, and they have straps tightened over the face where there is millions (billions?) of nerve cells. They subtly affect hearing and may cause other bodily sensations too. Affect can also include the perception of broader relational experiences, so the relationship bicycle helmets have to the experience of other helmets (motobike, construction, rock climbing or whatever) can be considered as modulating the affective response.

I think it would be certain that seat belts also modulate the perception of motor vehicle danger, but my guess is not as much due to their different ways they are bodily experienced.

Only if the purchasers bought accessories with their bike; only if the accessories purchased added up to the loss of margin on two helmets. And whether a bike shop would prefer one or another would also depend on the need for cash flow at the time, the urgency to turn stock over, and myriad other business variables.

I don't think this is at all a helpful or valid way to look at the situation as it ignores a whole bunch of current reality.

Hope you don't mind that I made the "if" the correct size.... for how it is being used. And... yes you made very good sense.

I don't think people consider safety all that much when selecting a sport, or sports equipment. My observation has been that adults with great hair... tend to ride bare-headed. Others tend to put something on their head. Most cyclists that wear kits [around here] seem to also wear a cycling helmet [and shoes].

I wear a helmet because my wife insists I do.... and I pick my conflicts carefully. She says I have to set a proper example for the children (grandkids?). Other than that.... I think helmets are mostly fashion statements. But I wouldn't consider riding without one.

I would be. And I work as a production buyer. But figure in all the other costs vs. the actual material cost and plant time for manufacturing only the helmet and then the actual helmet manufacture becomes a very small percentage of the overall cost: Packaging, assembly, shipping, warehousing, misc. overhead. And then you get into distribution which adds more shipping, warehousing, and overhead, on top of distributor markup. Same thing at a shop. Once it hits shop shelves, divide retail price by 10 to get a rough idea of total manufacturing costs -- that $50 helmet probably cost the helmet manufacturer $5 fresh off the manufacturing line, without shipping.

Just to manufacture it? About $1.50/lb or less I would guess for polystyrene. It doesn't cost any more to manufacture a $50 helmet at a bike shop than it does to manufacture a $15 helmet at Walmart.

My guestimate is based on US manufacturing and polypropylene or polyethylene manufacturing as that is what I work with. I don't do polystyrene, but it would cost less than half what EPP or EPE does.

There are some style/fashion differences in the big-box helmets and the LBS helmets, and that accounts for some of the difference in price. However, top manufactures are spending more money on R&D to create safer, more comfortable, and more convenient helmets. Not all costs are simply the manufacturing process and shipping.