Orange County Choppers Cologne.

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Okay, I think that is officially selling out.

Selling some products with their name and likeness is to be understood. Hell I would do it if I were them. However when grease-ball bike builders start to market a cologne, that is the point where they jump the shark.

/looks up to see who's jumping





😛

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Okay, I think that is officially selling out.

Selling some products with their name and likeness is to be understood. Hell I would do it if I were them. However when grease-ball bike builders start to market a cologne, that is the point where they jump the shark.

If this was about a Jesse James type I might agree with you. But it's obvious that Paul Jr. is a pretty boy. Paul Sr. maybe not but I can see how this isn't totally out of line with that shop.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Amused
BTW, "SELLOUT" is just the "enlightened liberal" version of screaming "SINNER" at someone who's morals they do not approve of.

In some cases, it's just the cry of the jealous.

Either way, it's bullsh!t.

I don't see how this is a moral question at all. The objection is that of an egregiously exploitative marketing campaign and using your name to drive it. They created a foundation of success on building supposedly unique bikes, and now they use that to drive vertical markets with which they have no involvement. It's self-exploitation to drive the dollar, and not individual passion. The term "sellout" has become a bit trite in most cases, but in this case it's quite fitting.

Stating it differently: I feel that when one segues from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic that they have "sold out." When your motivation lends itself more to the money (extrinsic) than the personal satisfaction (intrinsic) in your work, then you have "sold out."

You start be telling me how you don't see it as a moral question, then go on to describe it as exactly that. The question of "exploitation" is a moral one. And the really ridiculous thing here is that you think a person can "exploit" themselves.

Of COURSE they are in it for the money. Why do people automatically assume artists and creative people must always be altruistic?

OCC's success has been marketing all along. The damn company is only 5 years old, for fsck's sake.

Let's face it. "Sell out" is the cry of anti-corporate, anti-capitalist liberals who don't believe anyone should make more money than them.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Amused
You start be telling me how you don't see it as a moral question, then go on to describe it as exactly that. The question of "exploitation" is a moral one. And the really ridiculous thing here is that you think a person can "exploit" themselves.

Of COURSE they are in it for the money. Why do people automatically assume artists and creative people must always be altruistic?

OCC's success has been marketing all along. The damn company is only 5 years old, for fsck's sake.

Let's face it. "Sell out" is the cry of anti-corporate, anti-capitalist liberals who don't believe anyone should make more money than them.

You don't have to be an "anti-capitalist liberal" to value intrinsic motivations over extrinsic ones (to use Descartes' terms).

There is something admirable about artists and creative people who pursue careers driven by their passion (whether it is building bikes or making music). Those careers tend to carry a lot more risk and a lot less potential for financial gain than other careers (the 9-5 desk job). Clearly money is a factor when choosing any career (why else would we work at all?), but in a world where so many people measure success by the size of their bank account, it's nice to see some people motivated by other things in life.

That said, when the motivations clearly change (as it appears they have in this case), it's a little disappointing. In my opinion, this type of self-promotion tarnishes an image and reputation that was built over the years from a labor of love.

 

[MisterJackson]

I hope it smells like Mikey 😱

 

[brigden]

Please. They "sold out" the moment they started a television program. The cologne and coffee are icing on the cake, as far as they are concerned.

This is a total non-event.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: brigden
Please. They "sold out" the moment they started a television program. The cologne and coffee are icing on the cake, as far as they are concerned.

This is a total non-event.

Good point.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Amused
You start be telling me how you don't see it as a moral question, then go on to describe it as exactly that. The question of "exploitation" is a moral one. And the really ridiculous thing here is that you think a person can "exploit" themselves.

Of COURSE they are in it for the money. Why do people automatically assume artists and creative people must always be altruistic?

OCC's success has been marketing all along. The damn company is only 5 years old, for fsck's sake.

Let's face it. "Sell out" is the cry of anti-corporate, anti-capitalist liberals who don't believe anyone should make more money than them.

You don't have to be an "anti-capitalist liberal" to value intrinsic motivations over extrinsic ones (to use Descartes' terms).

There is something admirable about artists and creative people who pursue careers driven by their passion (whether it is building bikes or making music). Those careers tend to carry a lot more risk and a lot less potential for financial gain than other careers (the 9-5 desk job). Clearly money is a factor when choosing any career (why else would we work at all?), but in a world where so many people measure success by the size of their bank account, it's nice to see some people motivated by other things in life.

That said, when the motivations clearly change (as it appears they have in this case), it's a little disappointing. In my opinion, this type of self-promotion tarnishes an image and reputation that was built over the years from a labor of love.

Why? Because they seek to capitalize on their fame?

Why is that a bad thing? If anything, it makes me think more of them. At least they aren't so wrapped up in some idealistic bullsh!t as to not take advantage of what they have.

And, again, OCC is 5 years old. That's it. Paul Sr made his bones owning an Ironworks shop, and started OCC 5 years ago as mainly a hobby-business.

The fact that they can capitalize on their fame gives them the ability to waste time building the theme bikes you see on the show and to pursue more artistic things rather than having to focus on the bottom line with their bikes. If anything, this marketing is giving them MORE artistic freedom, not less.