Talk:West Coast Choppers

Fair use rationale for Image:WccLogo-lg.png

Image:WccLogo-lg.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason For Fame

I think (but have no basis, such as ratings figures, other than personal experience) that WCC's rise to fame is more due to mentions in Monster Garage than any of the Motorcycle Mania episodes.

Joe (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of the Motorcycle Mania shows, so I agree. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

NO LONGER IN OPERATION?

The article states that West Coast Choppers shut down its Long Beach headquarters in 2010 with no mention of relocation or if the brand is still being run by it. It does state that a professional brand company has licensing rights, so does that mean that West Coast Choppers in its popular form no longer in existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.220.106 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

It appears as though the person who wrote the majority of this material has a bias against both Jesse James and the West Coast Choppers brand. The tone of the writing implies that Mr. James is in fact not interested in motorcycles, but instead cynically uses them as props for his merchandise. Listing West Coast Choppers as a lifestyle brand rather than a producer of custom motorcycles clearly illustrates this bias. Mr. James and his motorcycles were known among motorcyclists, before he achieved broader appeal via The Discovery Channel's programs. Whether West Coast Choppers sold more t-shirts than bikes is irrelevant. Harley Davidson also makes more money selling accessories than they do selling bikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dethyak (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The source for the fact that they make all their profits from merchandise and that the motorcycles are loss leaders is Jesse James himself. It was not a publicly traded company and their books are not open to inspection: James bragged about these facts multiple times in multiple interviews. That's the only way we know anything about WCC profits. If you look closely, and if you read the cited sources, you'll see that there is a method to it. Showing a degree of contempt for his customers was consistent with his "bad boy" image; he is irreverent and DGAF. It was this devil may care attitude that was central to their appeal. Multiple experts said this about James, and they meant it as a complement. Comparing him to Coco Chanel and Martha Stewart was a compliment.

You might choose to view these things in a negative light, but James himself wasn't embarrassed by it; he bragged about it practically every time he was interviewed, and marketing experts deduced that this was a calculated, and quite intelligent, part of the WCC strategy.

I encourage you to read the cited articles. If you're not convinced, we can go through a point by point breakdown to show the correlation between the sources and the statements in this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The veracity of the information presented is not in dispute,the problem is the way it is presented. The writer of the article seems to have made a value judgement about the subject of the article. The presentation implies that Jesse James is dishonest and that his motives for building motorcycles are somehow questionable.I would suggest rewording the introduction this way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dethyak (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

West Coast Choppers (WCC) is a former custom motorcycle manufacturer and current lifestyle brand. WCC founder Jesse James began selling screen-printed t-shirts and stickers with the company's Iron cross/Maltese cross logo while finishing high school, before West Coast Choppers had ordered or sold[5][6][7 ] any motorcycles. After the company began building custom choppers, 60% of revenue still came from sales of WCC-branded merchandise such as clothing, beverages and tools.[3][8] Yearly sales of 12–15[5] motorcycles, at prices ranging from US$50,000 to US$ 150,000 each[4] , draw little revenue for the company. WCC’s list of celebrity clients includes Shaquille O'Neal, Kid Rock, Keanu Reeves, wrestling star Bill Goldberg, actor Tyson Beckford, and former NFL players Jamal Anderson and Ty Law. In addition to WCC, Jesse James Is known for hosting the series Monster Garage[5][12][13][14] and being featured in the Motorcycle Mania series both on the Discovery Channel.

The Long Beach, California headquarters of West Coast Choppers shut down in 2010.[15]

Well I think the point should mainly be that James figured out a way to make custom motorcycles profitable. It's a difficult business and he got a lot of respect for his marketing talents. So I think the lead can be reworded to keep the same information but present it in a way that points out how successful he was. He definietly was not dishonest about it: his business strategy was an open book for the whole world to see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that if you can find a source that spells out clearly and explicitly WCC's marketing strategy then you can leave it as-is. Otherwise you are drawing an inference from the sources you have. The fact that many sources present the same celebrity names IN NO WAY means that's part of the marketing strategy. The purpose of the entry isn't to draw a conclusion from something you read, it's to present the information objectively and let the reader draw his/her own conclusion. In my opinion, any mention of marketing strategy or to say that Jesse James got more respect for his marketing skills, must be explicit. One source you site calls him the master marketer but that is hype on the part of a columnist, and not supported by any evidence. If he won marketing awards or had his marketing strategy profiled in an industry magazine, then it would be fair to write about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dethyak (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that at least half dozen of the articles I cited do in fact clearly and explicitly spell out WCC's marketing strategy. Magazines like Advertising Age care about little else, after all. Ad Age certainly doesn't care about choppers. I can only beg you to read the sources, but if you won't do that there's not much I can do to convince you. Wikipedia's policy only demands that facts be verifiable, with a certain amount of effort. It is possible to verify what the articles I cited say, but the effort comes from you.

But nonetheless I agree that the tone can be altered to avoid any inference that what James did was wrong or deceptive. If anything, he was being more honest with his customers than other companies that don't admit the business realities behind their operations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Advertising Age" is not a source you cite from. Its editor gave his opinion in a quote that doesn't spell out WCC's marketing strategy in the least. The other sources you site, such as Brandweek and Beverage Industry aren't available to read anywhere. The snippets from those articles that are available mention other companies' use of Jesse James as a marketing strategy, not Jesse James or WCC's marketing strategy. Could you give specifics as to which half dozen sources reference WCC's marketing strategy? I've read the sources you cite which are available and I can't seem to find anything like that. I'm not trying to start a war or anything, I'm just asking that the entry be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dethyak (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can try to bring out some quotes from the articles in question when I revise the wording of the article.

In the meantime, please see Wikipedia:Offline sources. By not "available to read anywhere" you mean online, i.e. the FUTON bias, the Full Text On the Net bias. I bypassed the paywalls for many of these articles using ProQuest and InfoTrac, which my local public libraries subscribe to and I can log into for free with my library card. Check with your local library, university or school to see what access is available to you. More research tips are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. But even if the only way to check a source was to somehow buy an old book or magazine that is out of print, that is still a good source, as explained in Wikipedia:Offline sources. The root of this is the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, in the section WP:SOURCEACCESS, where it says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries".

I'll see what I can do about getting some specific quotes for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually tried ProQuest earlier and couldn't find the articles I was looking for there. I haven't checked in great detail, but I don't think any of my local libraries carry subscriptions to the publications I was looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dethyak (talk • contribs) 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)